kt:  ;!GHN  ■  mi)  •  other  hew 

TEST/IMENT  TEACHERS 


PROF :  n  l^HUMPHRIE  &  Tfl  n. 


5K- 

u^ 

•*-*• 

< 

1 

^ 

CO 

Pi    hi 

^^» 

tf 

fe    a  ^ 

^ 

% 

•-9 

ElY  0 

AND 
D.,  L 

•  12: 

C/3           C/3 

O 

3RA] 

LEX 
,  LL. 

•H    ;^    S^ 
:^    CD    QJ 

,  r^ 

• 

^         ^     <  n 

vDkJ  +j   o 

^ 

o 

OM  THE  L 

ND  JOHN 
ITT.D.,  D.l 

O    CO 

^ 

<  TD   4J 

^ 

U  C/3          C 

*  1 

5 

Pi 

•  CD    C    CU 

O 

tf    w  -J 

•H^  e 

5K. 

b     P^ 

r^  Jh  0   CO 

^ 

|z} 

thjz;  i-^  u 

^ 

> 

<T  Qu          CO 

J- 

a 

S      •    CD 

^ 

Pi 

CO  ;3  +J  H 
PQffi  c/D 

ST.  JOHN-       '"'* 


AND  OTHER  NEW   TESTAMENT 
TEACHERS 


BY  / 

REV.  A.  LEWIS   HUMPHRIES,  M.A. 

PROFESSOR   OF   NEW   TESTAMENT  GREEK   AND   EXEGESIS   IN    THE 
HARTLEY    PRIMITIVE   METHODIST   COLLEGE,    MANCHESTER 


LONDON 

T.  C.  ^5*  E.  C.  JACK 

i6  HENRIETTA  STREET,  W.C. 

AND  EDINBURGH 

1910 


AUTHOR'S   PREFACE 

In  sending  forth  this  little  book,  dealing  with  a  subject 
on  which  the  literature  already  existing  is  so  very  ex- 
tensive, the  author  finds  it  impossible  to  make  formal 
acknowledgment  of  all  the  writers  to  whom,  in  greater 
or  less  degree,  he  has  been  indebted.  He  feels  bound, 
however,  to  break  through  that  silence  to  the  extent 
of  expressing  his  obligation,  so  far  as  the  discussion 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  concerned,  to  Professor  E.  F. 
Scott,  with  whose  critical  conclusions,  set  forth  in  his 
book  "  The  Fourth  Gospel,"  he  has  found  himself  in 
large  agreement.  He  would  add  a  word  of  regret  that, 
owing  to  limitations  of  space,  he  has  been  compelled 
to  omit  from  his  treatment  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  a 
final  section  dealing  with  the  permanent  value  of  its 
message. 


CONTENTS 


I.— ST.  JOHN 


CHA?. 

I.    THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL      . 

A.  ITS    NATURE   AND    PURPOSE    . 

B.  THE    PERSON    OF   CHRIST 

C.  GOD   AND   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT". 

D.  THE   CHURCH    AND    THE   WORLD 

E.  THE    WORK    OF    CHRIST 

F.  THE    LAST   THINGS 
II.    THE    EPISTLES    OF   JOHN 

III.    THE    BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION      . 


IL— OTHER  NEW  TESTAMENT 
TEACHERS 


IV.  THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES  .  .  .  -US 

V.  THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS      .  -132 

VI.  THE    FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER         .  .  -152 

VII.  THE    EPISTLES    OF    JUDE    AND    SECOND  PETER       1 66 

INDEX I7Q 

viii 


ST.  JOHN   AND   OTHER   NEW 
TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 


I 

ST.   JOHN 


CHAPTER   I 

THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL 

A.-ITS  NATURE  AND  PURPOSE 

Upon  the  threshold  of  any  inquiry  concerning  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Fourth  Gospel  there  stand  two  problems,  one 
relating  to  its  authorship  and  the  other  to  its  historicity. 
The  identification  of  the  author  is  one  of  the  outstand- 
ing difficulties  of  criticism.  The  traditional  view,  that  it 
was  written  in  extreme  old  age  by  John,  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  has  many  great  names,  including  Godet  and 
Bernhard  Weiss  on  the  Continent  and  Lightfoot  and 
Sanday  in  England,  ranged  on  its  side,  and  there  is 
much  to  be  urged  in  its  favour.  Its  opponents,  however, 
are  impressive  in  both  number  and  authority.  Some  of 
these,  e.g.  Schmiedel,  Wernle,  and  Martineau,  absolutely 
reject  the  traditional  theory,  whilst  others,  like  Wendt 
and  Weizsacker,  occupy  a  mediating  position,  and  are 
of  opinion  that  the  Gospel  is  in  part  made  up  of  material 
furnished  by  John,  just  as  the  First  Gospel  is  believed 
to  have  derived  some  of  its  contents  from  the  Logia- 


ST.    JOHN 


document  of  Matthew.  Wellhausen,  again,  traces  in 
this  Gospel  two  main  sources,  differing  in  both  contents 
and  date,  and  finds  in  that  ingenious  theory  the  solution 
of  some  of  the  apparent  inconsistencies  in  its  teaching. 
Into  the  discussion  of  these  rival  positions  it  is  not 
necessary  to  enter.  They  have  but  little  relevance  to 
an  investigation  into  the  teaching  of  this  Gospel,  for 
one  thing  which  criticism  has  taught  us  is  that  the  truth 
of  a  message  does  not  stand  or  fall  with  some  particular 
theory  of  its  authorship,  but  is  determined  by  the  in- 
trinsic qualities  of  the  message  itself.  So,  though  we 
shall  speak  of  the  author  as  John,  it  will  be  understood 
that  we  are  simply  following  the  convention  of  tradition, 
and  that  we  pass  by,  as  not  vital  to  our  present  discus- 
sion, the  vexed  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

The  problem  of  its  historicity,  however,  cannot  be 
so  summarily  dismissed.  Even  the  acceptance  of  the 
Johannine  authorship  would  not  settle  that,  for  though 
we  could  infer  that  John  was  able,  had  he  been  so 
minded,  to  write  a  fresh  account  of  the  actual  events  of 
Christ's  ministry,  we  should  have  to  learn  from  a  patient 
study  of  the  Gospel  itself  whether  this  was  what  he  had 
really  chosen  to  produce.  The  investigation  starts  from 
the  Synoptic  Gospels,  since  it  is  generally  conceded  that 
they  bring  us  into  substantial  contact  with  fact.  But  to 
pass  from  them  to  John  is  like  entering  a  different 
atmosphere,  the  difficulty  being  not  so  much  that  the 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  5 

Fourth  Gospel  contains  new  incidents  and  sayings,  as 
that  the  whole  story  is  told  from  a  fresh  standpoint  and  in 
a  different  way.  The  scene  of  Christ's  ministry  is  laid 
largely  in  Judaea;  new  characters  appear,  or  familiar 
characters  play  a  new  role^  e.g.  John  the  Baptist,  who 
acts  throughout  as  a  witness  to  the  Messianic  dignity  of 
Jesus  \  the  perspective  of  the  history  is  foreshortened, 
for  whereas  in  the  Synoptists  the  assertion  of  His 
Messiahship  by  Jesus  and  the  recognition  of  it  by  others 
belong  to  the  closing  period  of  His  ministry,  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  Jesus  is  recognised  as  Messiah  from  the 
first  by  both  the  Baptist  and  the  disciples,  and  His  own 
dignity  and  claims  are  the  constant  theme  of  Christ's 
discourses  with  "  the  Jews,  "  who  in  this  Gospel  take,  as 
opponents  of  Jesus,  the  place  filled  by  the  Pharisees  in 
the  Synoptists.  Some  of  these  discrepancies  are  doubt- 
less less  impressive  on  closer  examination,  and  in  the 
narrative  itself  we  find  many  vivid  touches  and  pictu- 
resque details  which  suggest  that  the  story  is  being  told  by 
a  witness  of  what  he  records.  But  the  difference  under 
discussion  extends  to  discourses  as  well  as  incidents. 
There  is,  as  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  other 
three,  a  contrast  in  both  form  and  theme.  The  pithy, 
epigrammatic  sayings  which  mark  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
in  the  Synoptists  are  replaced  by  long  and  somewhat 
tedious  discourses,  whilst  parables  are  wholly  absent, 
the  allegories  of  the  True  Vine  and  the  Good  Shepherd 
being  the  nearest  approach  to  that  mode  of  instruction. 


ST.    JOHN 


For  this  contrast  in  style,  which  appears  equally  whether 
Jesus  is  speaking  in  Galilee,  Samaria,  or  Jerusalem, 
no  satisfactory  explanation  consonant  with  absolute 
historicity  is  yet  forthcoming.  Moreover,  the  same  style 
pervades  the  entire  Gospel,  so  that  whether  the  speaker 
be  Jesus  or  the  Baptist,  or  whether  the  writer  is  giving 
to  us  his  own  reflections,  the  same  literary  forms  and 
vocabulary  appear,  with  the  result  that  it  is  sometimes 
extremely  difficult,  e.g.  in  the  third  chapter,  to  know 
where  the  discourse  of  Jesus  ends  and  the  medita- 
tions of  the  Evangelist  begin.  On  the  theory  that 
the  latter  is  John,  critics  have  been  forced  to  assume 
that  original  sayings  of  Jesus  and  of  others  have  lain 
so  long  in  the  apostle's  mind,  and  have  been  the 
subject  of  such  frequent  meditation,  that  not  only  has 
a  deepened  significance  been  discovered  in  them, 
but  primal  utterance  and  subsequent  reflection  have 
become  fused  and  indistinguishable,  and  both  of 
them,  cast  in  the  matrix  of  John's  own  forms  of  ex- 
pression, have  been  assigned  to  the  days  of  the  historic 
ministry. 

The  subject  matter  of  the  discourses  is  equally  perplex- 
ing. The  divergence  from  the  Synoptic  record  is  not 
simply  at  the  circumference  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  parti- 
cular ideas  such  as  Eternal  Life  or  the  Second  Coming 
being  presented  in  a  new  light,  but  at  the  very  centre. 
The  two  ruling  ideas  of  Christ's  message  in  the  Synoptists 
are  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  the  Divine  Fatherhood — 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  7 

allusion,  whether  by  explicit  utterance  or  by  suggestion, 
to  the  dignity  of  our  Lord's  Person  being  quite  a 
secondary  feature.  But  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  whereas 
the  Kingdom  is  only  the  subject  of  a  few  casual  sayings, 
the  theme  of  repeated  discourses  is  the  Person  of  Christ. 
It  is  significant  that  the  emphatic  "  I,"  which,  as  used 
by  Jesus,  is  found  in  the  three  Synoptists  only  34 
times  altogether,  occurs  117  times  in  John.  What  this 
means  is  that  the  centre  of  gravity  is  shifted.  John  is 
writing  with  a  special  motifs  his  object  being,  as  the 
very  language  of  his  introductory  Prologue  suggests,  to 
exhibit  the  Jesus  of  history  as  the  Divine  Logos  mani- 
fested in  human  form  and  under  conditions  of  time. 
Even  the  miracles  related  of  Jesus  have  ulterior  and 
dogmatic  meanings.  They  are  "  signs,"  outward  mani- 
festations of  an  inner  glory,  and  valuable  because  of  the 
light  which  they  shed  upon  Christ's  Person.  So  the 
broad  conclusion  which  the  facts  seem  to  compel,  is 
that  John's  narrative,  whatever  be  the  measure  of  its 
correspondence  with  history,  is  shaped  by  dogmatic  ends. 
The  author's  interest  is  less  in  events  than  in  ideas.  In 
so  far  as  he  wishes  to  supplement  the  Synoptists,  it  is 
less  by  supplying  us  with  new  events  or  sayings  in  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  than  by  taking  us  behind  that  earthly 
life  so  that  we  see  it  in  the  setting  of  eternity,  and 
behold  external  events  as  but  the  embodiment  of  spiritual 
realities.  The  truth  which  is  John's  objective  is  truth  of 
belief  rather  than  that  of  historic  fact.     Of  course  many 


8  ST.    JOHN 


will  feel  that  the  belief  stands  or  falls  with  the 
history,  and  on  that  point  it  might  be  shown  that 
the  leading  ideas  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  exist  either 
explicitly  or  implicitly  in  the  Synoptic  record.  But 
what  we  need  to  apprehend  is  that  John's  whole 
narrative  has  dogmatic  significance,  and  that  it  is  less 
a  new  biography  of  Jesus  than  an  interpretation  of  Him 
which  the  Evangelist  is  seeking  to  give  to  us.  Under 
his  guidance  we  pass  from  the  outer  shrine  into  the 
holiest  of  all. 

This  view,  however  novel  it  may  seem,  is  really  a 
reversion  to  a  primitive  judgment,  for  among  the  earliest 
traditions  concerning  this  Gospel  is  one  assigned  by 
Eusebius  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  to  the  effect 
that  "  John,  last,  having  observed  that  the  bodily  things 
had  been  set  forth  in  the  Gospels,  and  exhorted  thereto 
by  his  friends,  and  inspired  by  the  Spirit,  produced  a 
spiritual  Gospel."  Now  "  bodily  "  and  "  spiritual "  in 
that  quotation  are  technical  terms,  representing  in  the 
school  of  Alexandria  the  antithesis  of  "  literal "  on  the 
one  hand,  and  "  figurative "  or  "  allegorical "  on  the 
other.  A  similar  view  is  attributed  to  Origen  and 
Epiphanius,  and  the  perception  of  this  may  account  for 
the  welcome  which  the  Fourth  Gospel  received  from 
the  first.  We,  therefore,  shall  best  learn  what  John 
wishes  to  teach  us  if,  putting  ourselves  at  his  point  of 
view,  we  cease  to  ask  where  in  the  record  the  chronicler 
gives  way  to  the  literary  artist,  and  seek  pre-eminently, 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  9 

in  both  narrative  and  discourse,  for  the  ideas  of  which 
he  meant  them  to  be  the  expression. 

What  those  ideas  are  the  Evangelist  himself  confesses. 
"These  are  written,"  he  says,  "that  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing 
ye  may  have  life  in  His  name"  (xx.  31).  In  other 
words,  this  Gospel  is  intended  by  its  writer  to  serve  certain 
dogmatic  and  practical  ends.  John  is  a  "tendency" 
writer.  His  aim  is  to  establish  a  conception  of  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah  of  Jewish  expectation  and  the  Son  of 
God,  and  in  that  way  to  promote  the  religious  life  of  his 
readers.  This  Gospel,  therefore,  if  not  a  theology,  is  at 
least  a  contribution  towards  one,  and  it  is  thus  that  we 
must  interpret  it.  In  doing  so  we  are  taken  into  the 
heart  of  an  interesting  situation.  For  one  assumption 
which  we  are  justified  in  making  is  that  the  Evangelist 
was  making  a  direct  appeal  to  the  conditions  in  which 
he  lived.  To  think  of  this  Gospel  as  the  product  of 
some  saintly  recluse,  or  as  embodying  the  devout  medi- 
tations of  a  soul  dwelling  apart  from  men  and  absorbed 
in  its  own  reflections,  is  to  make  it  strangely  unlike  the 
rest  of  Scripture,  and  to  leave  unexplained  the  welcome 
with  which  it  was  received.  Its  value  lay  in  the  fact 
that  it  addressed  itself  to  the  immediate  historic  situa- 
tion. A  credible  tradition  reports  Ephesus  to  have  been 
the  birthplace  of  this  book,  the  date  of  its  composition 
being  put  by  critics  anywhere  between  the  years  a.d.  80 
and   150,  though  a  large  mass  of  opinion  inclines  to 


lo  ST.    JOHN 


the  last  decade  of  the  first  century  or  the  opening 
decade  of  the  second.  Ephesus  was  one  of  the  great 
cities  of  the  ancient  world.  Famous  as  the  seat  of  the 
worship  of  Diana  and  as  the  head  of  a  Roman  province, 
it  was  one  of  the  gateways  of  the  East;  it  was  not 
simply  a  channel  for  trade,  but  a  meeting-place  of  the 
faith  and  culture  of  Oriental  and  Greek.  Ephesus 
was  the  world  in  microcosm.  To  translate  the  Gospel, 
therefore,  into  a  speech  which  seemed  appropriate  to 
Ephesus,  was  to  create  for  it  a  language  meet  to  be 
universal. 

It  is  to  a  cosmopolitan  audience  that  the  Evangelist 
makes  his  appeal.  Jew  though  we  believe  the  writer  to 
have  been,  the  fact  that  he  explains  Jewish  customs  and 
translates  Jewish  terms  shows  that  lie  writes  mainly  for 
Grentiles.  One  of  the  problems  of  this  Gospel  is  the 
way  in  which  the  opponents  of  Jesus  are  repeatedly 
referred  to  as  "the  Jews,"  the  disciples  being  put  into 
contrast  with  them  in  xiii.  33.  Moreover,  in  such  ex- 
pressions as  "your  law"  (viii.  17),  "their  law"  (xv.  25), 
Jesus  is  made  to  speak  like  one  standing  outside  the 
Jewish  race.  It  is  difficult  to  carry  this  mode  of  speech 
back  to  the  earthly  ministry,  but  it  becomes  perfectly 
intelligible  if  taken  as  reflecting  the  situation  when  the 
Evangelist  wrote.  Then  the  rupture  between  Christianity 
and  Judaism  had  become  complete,  and  the  new  society, 
which  at  first  had  been  threatened  with  absorption  into 
Judaism,  had  emerged  not  only  distinct  from  it,  but 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  ii 

finding  in  Judaism  its  chief  enemy.  All  hope  of  a 
general  ingathering  of  Israel  to  Christ  was  past,  and 
hence  even  Jews  like  John  looked  for  a  new  Israel  con- 
stituted by  spiritual  affinities,  from  which  those  whose 
bond  with  the  great  leaders  of  Israel's  past  was  simply 
racial  would  be  excluded.  Surely  this  is  the  point  of 
such  sayings  as  "  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children,  ye 
would  do  the  works  of  Abraham,"  and  "  If  ye  believed 
Moses,  ye  would  believe  Me"  (viii.  39,  v.  46).  The 
"  Israelite  indeed  "  was  to  be  found  within  the  shelter 
of  the  Christian  Church. 

It  is  claimed,  too,  that  conditions  later  than  those 
of  Christ's  ministry  are  reflected  in  the  controversies 
between  Him  and  "  the  Jews."  In  the  Synoptists  it  is 
Christ's  attitude  to  the  Law  and  its  ritual,  and  especially 
His  freedom  in  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  which 
gave  rise  to  conflict.  But  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  all 
conflict,  save  for  an  echo  of  the  Sabbatic  controversy, 
gathers  round  the  person  and  claims  of  Christ.  The 
lowliness  of  His  birth,  the  fact  that  He  came  from 
Galilee,  His  failure  to  win  the  adherence  of  the  religious 
leaders  of  His  nation.  His  betrayal  by  one  of  His 
disciples,  and  His  crucifixion  as  a  malefactor — these 
were  natural  objections  for  Jews  to  urge  against  the 
Messianic  claims  of  Jesus  when,  after  His  ascension,  they 
were  boldly  proclaimed  by  the  Church  throughout  the 
Jewish  world.  They  were  precisely  the  objections 
which  (the  Talmud  and  opponents  of  Christianity  such 


ST.    JOHN 


as  Celsus  being  witness)  were  the  stock-in-trade  of 
Jewish  antagonism.  More  than  once,  probably,  John 
had  had  to  deal  with  them  in  the  course  of  his  ministry, 
and  in  his  Gospel  he  supplies  them  with  their  final 
refutation. 

The  Evangelist  writes,  therefore,  as  one  who  has  but 
small  hope  of  the  conversion  of  his  own  countrymen. 
His  aim  is  not  so  much  to  win  them  as  to  expose  them, 
to  set  their  opposition  to  Jesus  in  its  true  light  before 
the  world,  and  thus  vindicate  the  career  of  Christ.  If 
there  is  any  softening  of  his  hostility  to  Jlidaism,  it  is 
when  he  refers  to  the  Baptist,  who,  is  always  spoken  of 
wuth  respect,  though  also  he  is  throughout  consistently 
depicted  as  recognising  his  inferiority  to  Jesus.  Balden- 
sperger  exaggerates  the  significance  of  this  feature  when 
he  makes  it  the  pivot  of  the  whole  narrative.  But  it 
had  a  meaning,  and  if  there  still  lingered  a  Baptist  party 
at  Ephesus  (see  Acts  xix.  3),  it  may  have  been  with  the 
hope  of  securing  its  fusion  with  the  Christian  Church 
that  John  was  so  careful  to  exhibit  the  Baptist  as 
inferior  in  status  to  Jesus.  But  if,  with  that  excep- 
tion, John  turns  from  the  Jewish  world,  it  is  in  the 
hope  of  capturing  that  of  the  Gentiles.  After  all, 
the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  least  Jewish  of  the  Gospels. 
Jewish  in  some  measure  it  was  bound  to  be,  for  the 
writer,  himself  a  Jew,  had  to  depict  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  a  religion  which,  however  much  it  transcended 
Judaism,  had  therein  its  roots.     But  Palestine  is  but 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  13 

platform  and  background.  Jesus  Himself,  as  John 
describes  Him,  belongs  to  a  larger  world,  and  we  are 
only  taken  back  to  history  that  we  may  see  behind  and 
beyond  it.  Jesus,  though  apparently  moving  in  time 
and  space,  is  in  reality  above  such  limitations,  and  it  is 
His  universal,  because  eternal,  nature  and  functions 
which  constitute  the  essential  message  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel. 

This  view  of  it  is  sustained  by  its  terminology.  The 
key  to  the  book  is  to  be  found  in  the  Prologue,  where 
the  Logos  or  Word  of  philosophical  speculation  is 
identified  with  the  historic  Jesus.  In  that  strange  term,, 
placed  thus  in  the  very  forefront,  and  by  the  very 
abruptness  of  its  introduction  proving  itself  to  be  a 
familiar  element  in  the  thought-world  of  those  whom 
John  was  seeking  to  address,  we  have  an  attempt  to 
launch  Christianity  into  a  wider  world  than  it  had 
hitherto  reached.  Just  because  he  had  lost  hope  of  the 
Jews,  the  Evangelist  turns  with  wistful  eyes  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  he  speaks  to  them  in  the  familiar  language 
of  their  speculations.  For  it  is  to  the  intellect  of  the 
Gentile  world  that  John  is  eager  to  find  a  door  of 
entrance,  and  so  he  translates  his  message  into  terms  of 
heathen  culture,  because  he  felt  that  in  Jesus  they  found 
their  true  realisation.  Truth  is  always  greater  than  its 
form,  and  the  very  vitality  of  truth  lies  in  the  fact  that 
it  can  adapt  itself  to  new  modes  of  expression.  A 
faith  which  cannot  change  its  intellectual  statement  is 


14  ST.    JOHN 


either  dead  or  dying.  The  true  is  also  the  eternal,  for 
it  dies  to  one  mode  of  expression  that  it  may  reappear 
in  another,  and  of  truth,  as  well  as  of  the  redeemed 
spirit,  it  holds  good  that  it  can  take  to  itself  new  forms, 
and  that  God  giveth  it  a  body  even  as  it  pleaseth  Him. 
At  the  same  time  the  philosophical  interest  of  the  Evan- 
gelist is  not  primary  but  secondary ;  in  other  words, 
current  philosophy  is  resorted  to  more  for  terms  than 
for  ideas.  So  far  as  John's  debt  to  the  Logos  philo- 
sophy of  Philo  is  concerned,  close  investigation  has 
shown  that  there  is  no  very  sustained  correspondence 
between  the  two  thinkers.  In  outstanding  ideas  and 
terms  they  agree,  but  below  the  surface  they  part 
company,  the  omissions  of  John  being,  as  Dr.  Drummond 
has  shown,  too  numerous  and  significant  to  suggest 
abstruse  acquaintance  on  his  part  with  Philo's  philo- 
sophy, or  indeed  any  larger  knowledge  of  it  than  could 
be  gleaned  from  personal  intercourse  and  discussion 
with  cultured  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  Ephesus  itself.  The 
Logos  idea  was  in  the  air  much  as  "evolution"  is 
to-day.  And  just  as  we  can  imagine  a  man  whose  prime 
interest  was  theology,  having  but  a  popular  acquaintance 
with  evolution,  yet  seeking  to  gain  the  ear  of  men  with 
scientific  interests  by  re-uttering  the  fundamental  truths 
of  theology  in  terms  borrowed  from  evolutionary 
science,  so  did  John,  realising  that  there  were  certain 
basal  ideas  in  which  the  two  disciplines  were  agreed, 
declare   Christian    truth   in   the   language   of  heathen 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  15 

philosophy.  It  was  a  noble  and  a  necessary  thing  to 
do.  The  affinities  between  Christian  thought  and 
Greek  culture  needed  to  be  recognised,  and  so  yoked  to 
the  service  of  truth  as  to  capture  for  Christ  the  best 
minds  of  heathendom. 

Moreover,  the  terms  which  John  employs  to  set  forth 
the  activity  of  Christ  belong  to  a  wider  world  than 
Judaism.  Jesus  comes  bringing  "light"  and  "life," 
and  the  response  which  He  demands  from  men  is 
"knowledge"  and  "faith."  In  the  elaborate  use  made 
of  these  terms  in  the  Gospel,  together  with  its  dualism, 
and  notably  its  conception  of  the  "world,"  scholars 
have  detected  a  friendly  approach  to  another  product  of 
Gentile  culture,  viz.  the  scheme  of  religious  thought 
which,  because  of  the  value  placed  by  it  on  gnosis  or 
knowledge,  is  known  as  Gnosticism.  Rooting  itself  in 
an  assumed  antagonism  between  matter  and  spirit. 
Gnosticism  elaborated  a  doctrine  of  angels  and  of  Divine 
emanations,  of  whom  Jesus  was  accepted  as  one,  to 
serve  as  intermediaries  between  God  and  the  world.  In 
so  far  as  Jesus  was  Himself  Divine,  it  was  felt  necessary 
that  His  assumption  of  human  nature  should  be  docetic 
rather  than  actual,  the  Divine  Logos  only  entering  the 
man  Jesus  at  the  Baptism  and  deserting  Him  prior  to  the 
Cross.  Redemption,  too,  which  meant  the  release  of 
the  spirit  from  bondage  to  the  flesh,  was  only  possible 
through  knowledge  of  an  esoteric  type,  including  such 
a  perception  of  the  Divine  nature  as  could  be  mediated 


i6  ST.    JOHN 


only  by  one  who  was  Himself  Divine.     To  the  Gnostic, 

therefore,    "knowledge"    was   initiation    into   a   purely 

intellectual  discipline,  and  was  open  only  to  the  cultured 

few.     What  was  the  attitude  of  this  Gospel  to  that  type 

of  thought?     That   there  was   some  relation  between 

them   is   suggested  by  the   conflicting   theories   which 

have  prevailed,  one  that  the  Gospel  was  a  tract  against 

Gnosticism,   another   that   it   was   actually   written   by 

Cerinthus,  a  prominent  Gnostic  whom  John  is  said  to 

have  opposed.     We  have  evidence  from  the  Epistles  of 

John  and  that  to  the  Colossians,  as  well  as  from  hints 

in  the   Apocalypse,    that   there  was  even   in  the  first 

century  incipient  Gnosticism  in  the  Christian  Church 

in  and  near  Ephesus.     The  time  came,  towards  the  end 

of  the   second  century,   when  the  Church   repudiated 

Gnosticism  and  all  its  works,  but,  when  John  wrote,  its 

ideas,  being  but   partially   developed,  found  a  certain 

hospitality  within  Christian  circles.     Yet  it  by  no  means 

follows  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  Gnostic  tract,  or,  as 

Schmiedel  believes,  the  work  of  a  writer  who  came  to 

Christianity  by  way  of  Gnosticism.     Why,  if  the  author  of 

this  Gospel  be  a  Gnostic,  is  he  so  silent  as  to  angels  ? 

Why  is  he  so  careful  to  note  experiences  of  Jesus  which 

point  to  His  possession  of  a  real  human  nature  ?     Why 

does  he  refuse  to  exclude   God   from  the  world,  and 

assign  creation,  not  to  some  angelic  demiurge,  but  to 

the   Logos   Himself,   the   immediate   representative  of 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  17 

God?  Why,  even  when  he  speaks  of  knowledge  and 
faith,  does  he  so  sedulously  avoid  the  nouns,  which  were 
the  familiar  Gnostic  watchwords,  and  so  invariably 
employ  the  corresponding  verbs?  These  differences 
are  not  accidental.  They  represent  the  tolerant 
temper  of  a  Christi.iu  thinker  who,  recognising  some 
modicum  of  truth  in  Gnosticism,  sought  to  harness 
some  of  its  terms  to  Christian  service,  doubtless  hoping 
thereby  to  gain  the  ear  of  men  whose  Gnostic  sym- 
pathies made  them  indifferent  to  Christianity  as  ordi- 
narily presented. 

Yet  John,  with  all  his  willingness  to  cast  Christian 
thought  into  new  forms,  remains  firmly  loyal  to  its  sub- 
stance. His  faith  is  born,  not  of  the  mists  of  specula- 
tion, but  of  the  facts  of  experience.  He  is  so  convinced 
a  theologian  simply  because  he  is  so  great  a  Christian. 
He  wrote  when  the  generation  which  had  known  Jesus 
in  the  flesh  had  almost  passed  away,  and  the  primal 
enthusiasm,  which  had  carried  the  Church  forward  in 
its  triumphant  career,  had  to  some  extent  spent  itself. 
The  Jewish  controversy,  with  the  resultant  breach 
between  Judaism  and  the  Church,  lay  behind.  More- 
over, the  expectation  of  Christ's  speedy  return,  though 
still  cherished,  was  growing  fainter  with  the  delay  in  its 
fulfilment.  Evidently  the  end  was  not  yet,  and  the 
Church,  confronting  the  future,  needed  to  be  braced 
for  new  tasks  and  triumphs.     So  John,  reahsing  that  the 

B 


i8  ST.   JOHN 


hope  of  Christianity  lay  with  the  Gentiles,  and  that,  in 
addressing  them,  the  Gospel  must  appeal  not  simply  to 
their  conscience,  but  to  their  thought,  translated  Christ's 
message,  as  he  had  come  to  know  it,  into  terms  congenial 
to  the  Gentile  culture  of  the  time.  Naturally  this  view 
implies  that  there  is  in  this  Gospel  a  considerable 
subjective  element,  but  on  that  point  criticism  is 
practically  agreed,  the  only  matter  of  debate  being  its 
extent.  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  "  an  inner  life  of  Jesus  " ; 
it  embodies  not  only  recollection  but  interpretation,  it  is 
Christ's  message  brought  up  to  date.  The  Christ  who 
speaks  is  not  simply  the  Teacher  of  the  earthly  ministry, 
but  the  eternal  Christ,  the  glorious  Figure  who  walks 
amid  the  candlesticks,  and,  though  glorified,  speaks  still 
through  His  servant  to  the  churches.  It  is  that  con- 
viction on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist  which  accounts 
for  and  justifies  the  biographical  form  in  which  the 
entire  message  is  presented.  The  actual  writing  of  this 
Gospel  came  at  the  end  of  a  long  and  almost  unconscious 
process.  The  actual  words  of  Jesus,  lovingly  cherished, 
had  been  wrought  over  by  the  profound  meditation  of  a 
mind  not  sunk  in  its  own  abstractions,  but  stimulated  at 
once  by  the  facts  of  experience  and  by  the  friction  of 
the  speculative  world  in  which  John  lived.  More  and 
more  had  he  come  to  see  in  Jesus  the  response  to  the 
needs  and  thoughts  of  that  world,  and  quite  naturally 
in  his  lips  the  Gospel  assumed  a  form  in  which  that  fact 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  19 

was  expressed.     Truthfully  does  Browning  make  John 
say : 

"  Much  that  at  first  in  deed  and  word 
Lay  simply  and  sufficiently  exposed, 
Had  grown  (or  else  my  soul  was  grown  to  match, 
Fed  through  such  years,  familiar  with  such  light, 
Guarded  and  guided  still  to  see  and  speak,) 
Of  new  significance  and  fresh  result ; 
What  first  were  guessed  as  points  I  now  knew  stars." 

So,  whilst  the  Synoptists  give  us  the  facts  of  Christ's 
life,  John  introduces  us  to  their  inner  meaning.  He 
gathers  up  his  sense  of  the  worth  and  work  of  Jesus  into 
a  presentation  which,  just  because  it  is  so  intimate  and 
spiritual,  appeals  to  the  head  not  less  than  to  the  heart, 
as  the  crown  of  New  Testament  literature. 

B.— THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST 

The  central  place  which  Jesus  occupies  in  this  Gospel 
makes  it  fitting  that  our  study  of  its  theology  should 
begin  with  the  doctrine  of  His  Person.  If,  as  seems 
natural,  the  Prologue  is  to  be  taken  as  outlining  the 
theme  of  the  Gospel,  the  purpose  of  the  writer  is  to 
identify  Jesus  with  the  Logos  or  Word  of  philosophic 
speculation.  The  Logos  is  described  as  eternally  exist- 
ing in  the  circle  of  the  Divine  nature,  related  to  God, 
yet  distinct  from  Him,  and  serving  as  His  agent  in 
creation  and  in  the  illumination  and  redemption  of  men. 


20  ST.    JOHN 


It  is  in  the  saying,  "  The  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us,"  that  the  transition  is  made  from  the  Logos 
of  abstract  speculation  to  the  Jesus  of  history,  with 
whom  thenceforth  the  narrative  is  wholly  concerned. 
Hence,  though  the  term  "  Logos "  does  not  recur,  the 
conception  is  always  in  the  background,  and  the  burden 
of  John's  effort  is  to  show  that  all  the  Logos  attributes 
and  functions,  notably  the  mediation  of  life  and  light  to 
men,  are  focussed  in  the  incarnate  Jesus,  who  satisfies, 
therefore,  the  rational  as  well  as  the  religious  needs 
of  man. 

The  term  "  Logos,"  introduced  with  an  abruptness 
which  argues  its  familiarity  to  John's  readers,  was  a  gift 
to  the  Christian  vocabulary  from  Greek  philosophy. 
Having  the  double  meaning  of  "reason"  and  "word," 
it  was  first  used  (by  Heraclitus  of  Ephesus)  to  denote 
the  rational  principle  which  was  seen  to  be  exhibited  in 
nature.  In  that  impersonal  sense  the  term  was  trans- 
mitted through  Stoic  philosophy  to  Philo,  a  learned  Jew 
who  flourished  at  Alexandria  early  in  the  first  century. 
Plato  had  also  used  the  term  in  the  plural  to  express  the 
various  super-sensible  ideas — the  thought-models,  so  to 
speak — in  harmony  with  which,  conceived  as  separately 
existing,  the  actual  had  been  made.  On  the  philosophic 
side  Philo  unified  these  two  conceptions,  so  that  to  him 
the  Logos  was  transcendent  as  well  as  immanent,  this 
double  view  being  the  easier  because  the  term  by  its 
twofold  meaning  suggested  reason  both  as  an  abstract 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  21 

principle  and  as  expressed  in  speech.  To  Philo  also, 
as  he  was  a  Jew,  the  Logos  idea  brought  relief  to  the 
religious  situation.  Under  the  influence  of  legalism, 
Jewish  thought  had  come  to  construe  the  holiness  of 
God  in  terms  of  materialism,  so  that  the  idea  had 
grown  up  that  only  by  God's  utter  separation  from  the 
world  could  His  purity  be  secured.  Direct  contact 
with  the  world  being  thus  denied  to  God,  the  need  was 
felt  for  some  intermediary  to  act  on  His  behalf,  with 
the  result  that  in  Job  and  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
"  Wisdom  "  becomes  the  Divine  agent  in  creation,  whilst 
late  rabbinic  exegesis  went  so  far  as  to  substitute  the 
"Word  of  God"  for  the  Divine  name  in  passages  of 
the  Old  Testament  where  direct  action  is  ascribed 
to  God.  So  in  Philo  two  currents,  Greek  and  Jewish, 
blended,  and  the  Logos  idea  was  enriched  in  that  it 
came  to  denote  the  entire  outgoing  of  the  Divine 
activity,  and  hence  had  a  dynamical  as  well  as  a 
rational  side. 

With  Philo,  however,  the  Logos,  even  when  he  speaks 
of  it  in  personal  terms  as  "  Son  of  God  "  and  "  only 
begotten,"  never  seems  to  have  been  more  than  a  vivid 
personification  of  the  abstract  activity  of  God.  It  is 
not  so  with  John.  He  comes  to  the  idea,  not  by  the 
path  of  speculation,  but  by  that  of  experience.  He 
anchors  himself  in  historic  fact,  and  makes  that  control 
his  metaphysic.  Anxious  though  he  is,  therefore,  to 
meet  philosophy  on  its  own  ground,  his  starting-point  is 


22  ST.    JOHN 


the  historic  Jesus.  He  is  a  Christian  first  and  a  philo- 
sopher afterwards,  with  the  result  that  he  is  no  thorough- 
going Philonist.  Fact  with  him  dominates  theory,  and 
hence,  being  convinced  that  the  Jesus  of  history  fulfilled 
all  the  functions  ascribed  by  philosophy  to  the  Logos,  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  modify  the  philosophic  conception 
in  two  directions,  viz.,  he  assigns  to  the  Logos  a  human 
nature  and  a  living  personality.  To  him  the  Logos  is 
no  abstract  rational  principle  or  the  personified  out- 
going of  the  Divine  activity,  but  is  a  Divine  Person 
manifested  under  human  conditions.  In  his  assertion, 
"  The  Word  became  flesh,"  the  emphasis  of  his  thought 
is  on  the  predicate.  Yet,  strange  to  say,  one  charge 
levelled  against  John  is  that,  in  the  interests  of  the 
Divine  nature  of  Jesus,  he  obscures  the  representation 
of  His  humanity.  The  charge  is  plausible  in  that  the 
Evangelist  omits  to  relate  the  Baptism  and  Temptation 
of  Jesus  (though  in  i.  32  the  former  event  is  implied), 
and  is  silent  as  to  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  and  the  cry 
on  the  Cross.  But  when  these  deductions  are  made, 
there  is  left  to  us  One  who  is  wearied  and  thirsty,  weeps 
at  Lazarus'  tomb,  inquires  its  whereabouts,  and,  ere  He 
calls  Lazarus  forth  from  it,  prays  to  His  Father,  doing 
on  that  occasion  for  the  bystanders'  sake  what  the  words 
"  I  know  that  Thou  hearest  Me  always  "  prove  to  have 
been  a  regular  practice  on  the  part  of  Jesus.  Granting, 
therefore,  that  the  Synoptists  give  us  a  fuller  presenta- 
tion of  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  suflScient  is  said  in  the 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  23 

Fourth  Gospel  to  show  that  its  writer  stood  at  the  same 
point  of  view. 

He  writes,  however,  in  the  interests  of  a  larger  faith. 
The  titles  "  Christ  "  or  "  Messiah,"  "  Son  of  Man,"  and 
"  Son  of  God,"  which  are  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  Synop- 
tists,  occur  also  in  this  Gospel,  but  in  a  different  propor- 
tion. As  regards  the  Messianic  office,  not  only  does 
Jesus  on  one  occasion  definitely  claim  it  (iv.  26),  but 
the  Baptist  and  the  earliest  disciples,  as  well  as  Peter 
later  on  in  Christ's  ministry  (vi.  69),  recognise  Him  as 
fulfilling  it.  In  controversy  with  "the  Jews"  the 
Messianic  dignity  of  Jesus  comes  under  discussion,  and 
in  one  passage  (vii.  25-52)  various  objections  are  urged 
against  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  e.g. 
that  there  was  no  mystery  about  His  advent  (ver.  27),  that 
He  came  out  of  Galilee,  and  was  not  known  to  be  of 
Davidic  descent  and  a  native  of  Bethlehem  (vers.  41,  42). 
It  seems  somewhat  strange,  in  view  of  the  nativity  stories 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  neither  Jesus  nor  the 
Evangelist  says  anything  as  to  the  last  objection.  The 
probability,  however,  is  that  it  was  felt  to  be  immaterial. 
The  fact  is  that  the  term  "  Messiah "  was  never  big 
enough  to  describe  Jesus  even  as  the  founder  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  It  was  too  national,  and,  in  view 
of  its  history,  too  unspiritual,  to  define  Him.  Hence, 
though  Jesus  adopted  it,  because  He  felt  that  He  corre- 
sponded to  a  Divine  promise  and  a  national  hope.  He 
read  into  it  a  spiritual  content,  and  on  that  higher  plane 


24  ST.    JOHN 


conducts  the  controversy  concerning  it,  making  no 
attempt  to  answer  objections  which  only  had  weight 
on  the  plane  of  an  external  conception  of  the  Messiah 
and  His  work.  What  he  points  to  as  His  credentials 
is  the  consciousness  that  He  had  come  from  God,  and 
that  he  had  in  Himself  that  which  would  satisfy  the 
higher  needs  of  man.  The  objections  of  His  critics  are 
not  so  much  refuted  as  transcended. 

As  regards  the  title  "  Son  of  Man,"  the  Synoptic  usage 
is  reflected  in  John  in  that  it  occurs  consistently  as  a 
self-designation  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  and  appears,  more- 
ever,  in  much  the  same  connections,  the  "  Son  of  Man" 
being  spoken  of  as  lifted  up  on  the  Cross,  exalted  to 
the  throne  of  God,  and  appointed  to  execute  judgment. 
Just,  too,  as  in  the  Synoptists  the  "  Son  of  Man "  for- 
gives sin,  and  seeks  the  lost,  so  in  John  (vi.  27)  He 
bestows  eternal  life,  this  gift  being  mediated  by  participa- 
tion in  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  "  Son  of  Man  "  (ver. 
58).  The  meaning  and  derivation  of  "Son  of  Man" 
are  problems  of  criticism,  but  the  most  likely  view  is 
that  it  was  a  veiled  Messianic  title  recalling  the  symbolic 
figure  "like  unto  a  son  of  man,"  who  in  the  visions  of 
Daniel  receives  the  Kingdom.  It  lays  no  emphasis, 
even  in  John,  upon  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  but  simply 
asserts  that  Jesus,  in  spite  of  His  lowly  guise  and  the 
humiliation  of  the  Cross,  was  in  function  and  destiny 
identical  with  that  glorious  being  whom  prophetic  vision 
had  foreseen.     Here  John  and  the  Synoptists  are  at  one. 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  25 

Not  so,  however,  with  the  remaining  title,  *'Son  of  God." 
Whether  in  its  full  form,  or  abbreviated  as  "  the  Son," 
it  occurs  but  rarely  in  the  Synoptists,  and  there,  e.g.  in 
the  Temptation,  means  little  more  than  the  Messiah 
viewed  as  a  special  object  of  the  Divine  favour,  or  as 
the  antithesis  to  "Father"  (Matt.  xi.  27),  expresses  the 
ethical  oneness  between  Jesus  and  God.  In  its  use  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel  the  first  point  to  be  noted  is  that  it 
is  the  distinctive  self-designation  of  Jesus.  Nevertheless 
in  some  passages  it  simply  recalls  the  Synoptic  meaning. 
In  X.  37,  e.g.^  as  the  context  shows,  Jesus  claims  that 
the  title  is  applicable  to  Himself  because  He  possesses 
a  Divine  commission.  There,  and  again  in  xi.  4,  where 
the  glorifying  of  the  "  Son  of  God "  is  explained  later 
(ver.  42)  as  a  belief,  created  by  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus, 
that  God  had  sent  Jesus,  the  title  is  virtually  equivalent 
to  Messiah,  as  it  is  also  when  used  by  the  Baptist  and 
Nathanael  (i.  34,  49).  In  other  passages  the  ethical,  as 
distinct  from  the  official,  sonship  is  expressed,  and  stress 
is  laid  upon  the  spiritual  intimacy  and  moral  union 
existing  between  Christ  and  God.  "  The  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  sheweth  Him  all  things  that  Himself  doeth  " 
(v.  20).  "  If  I  judge.  My  judgment  is  true ;  for  I  am 
not  alone,  but  I  and  the  Father  that  sent  Me"  (viii.  16). 
So  constant  and  complete  is  this  union  of  thought  and 
will  that  it  is  as  if  the  two  personalities  had  become 
interfused  in  a  way  that  only  mystical  language  can 
express.     "Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee" 


26  ST.    JOHN 


(xvii.  2i).  The  property  of  each  had  become  their 
common  possession.  "  All  Mine  are  Thine,  and  Thine 
are  Mine"  (xvii.  lo).  This  absolute  identity  on  the 
ethical  plane  is  further  declared  in  the  great  sayings  "  I 
and  the  Father  are  one"  (x.  30),  and  "He  that  hath 
seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father"  (xiv.  9).  It  accords 
with  this  view  that  Jesus  uniformly  assumes  towards 
God  the  attitude  of  dependence.  His  teaching  and 
works,  so  He  declares,  are  all  derived,  not  original ; 
they  are  given  by  the  Father  through  the  Son.  Jesus 
speaks  to  men  all  things  that  He  "has  heard  of  the 
Father."  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  but 
what  He  seeth  the  Father  doing"  (v.  19).  "The  words 
that  I  say  unto  you  I  speak  not  from  Myself,  but  the 
Father  abiding  in  Me  doeth  His  works"  (xiv.  10).  Out 
of  this  sense  of  dependence  sprang  the  confession  "  My 
Father  is  greater  than  I."  Hence  it  is  no  surprise  to 
find  that  Jesus  prays  to  God,  identifies  Himself,  where 
worship  is  concerned,  with  His  Jewish  brethren  (iv.  22), 
and  even  pictures  Himself  as  praying  to  God  in  His 
future  glory  (xiv.  16).  The  being  so  far  disclosed  by 
the  term  "  Son  of  God  "  is  one  who  on  the  ethical  plane 
had  drawn  wonderfully  near  to  the  heart  of  God,  and 
was  conscious  of  such  absolute  devotion  to  the  will  of 
the  Father  as  made  Him,  though  a  man,  in  a  unique 
sense  the  Son  of  God's  love. 

Yet  what  we  are  forced  to  ask  is  whether  this  exhausts 
the   Johannine  presentation  of  the  sonship  of  Jesus. 


THE   FOURTH    GOSPEL  27 

Are  we  not  taught  that  this  ethical  sonship  was  rooted 
in  a  deeper  oneness  of  a  metaphysical  character — in  an 
identity  of  essence,  so  to  speak,  between  Jesus  and  God  ? 
We  may  begin  with  the  conception  of  John  himself  as  it 
is  set  forth  in  the  Prologue.  One  undisputed  contention 
is  that  the  Evangelist  identifies  Jesus  with  the  Logos, 
who  evidently  belongs  to  the  Divine  order.  "In  the 
beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God."  Pre-existence,  the  fellowship 
with  God  of  One  who  was  Himself  an  integral  part  of  the 
Divine  nature — these  are  the  positions  there  affirmed. 
Hence  Jesus,  as  John  views  Him,  is  a  being  of  a  new 
order.  The  epithet  "  only-begotten  "  (i.  14)  marks  Him 
as  in  point  of  origin,  and,  therefore,  of  quality,  separate 
from  men,  among  whom  He  moves  as  the  source  of 
life  and  light.  Certain  affirmations  found  in  the  body 
of  the  Gospel  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  Himself  point  in  the 
same  direction.  Jesus  repeatedly  speaks  of  Himself  as 
"  sent  "  by  God,  or  "  coming  forth  "  from  Him.  He 
has  "  come  down  "  from  heaven,  and  has  yet  to  ascend 
"where  He  was  before."  He  prays  for  the  glory  which 
He  had  with  God  "  before  the  world  was,"  and  in 
another  striking  saying  tells  His  critics :  **  Before 
Abraham  was,  I  am,"  a  declaration  which  in  its  very 
form  seems  intended  to  express  an  eternal  existence. 
Similarly,  in  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  Jesus 
explains  His  familiarity  with  heavenly  things  as  due  to 
His  previous  life  in  the  heavenly  places,  and  the  Baptist 


28  ST.    JOHN 


ascribes  Christ's  priority  over  himself  to  a  priority  of 
existence  (i.  30).  Some  of  these  statements,  e.g.  those 
which  speak  of  Christ  as  "  sent "  by  God  or  "  coming 
forth  "  from  Him,  can  be  interpreted  as  merely  denoting 
a  Divine  commission,  but  others  cannot  be  thus  easily  re- 
solved, nor  does  the  theory  of  a  merely  ideal  pre-existence 
naturally  fit  the  language.  Beyschlag  and  Wendt 
favour  this  interpretation,  and  it  is  quite  true  that  such  a 
conception  was  not  foreign  to  Judaism.  The  Temple, 
Jerusalem,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  were  thought  of  as 
existing  in  heaven  prior  to  their  manifestation  on  earth. 
In  the  same  way  the  Messiah,  so  it  is  claimed,  though 
actually  non-existent,  existed  as  a  thought  in  which  God 
delighted,  before  Abraham,  or  even  the  beginning  of 
creation,  and  this  view  is  all  that  the  language  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  requires.  But,  to  take  simply  one  passage, 
the  saying  about  Abraham  was  in  answer  to  an  objection 
that  Jesus,  though  not  fifty  years  old,  had  spoken  as  if 
He  had  seen  Abraham,  who  had  lived  centuries  before. 
What  possible  bearing  has  His  answer  upon  that 
objection,  if  Jesus  meant  that  He  only  existed  in  those 
far-off  days  as  an  idea  ?  And  why,  on  that  view,  were 
the  people  who  gave  Christ's  words  a  literal  meaning 
allowed  to  go  uncorrected  ?  Hints  of  pre-existence  are 
not  wholly  absent  from  Christ's  words  in  the  Synoptists, 
e.g.  He  speaks  about  David's  son  being  also  David's 
Lord.  And  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  the  sayings  under  discussion,  especially  in  view 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  29 

of  the  definite  language  of  the  Prologue,  is  that  the 
earthly  life  of  Jesus  is  regarded  as  an  interval  in  a 
heavenly  existence  out  of  which  He  comes  and  to  which 
He  returns. 

As  regards  the  moral  perfection  of  Jesus  the  absence 
of  sin  is  affirmed,  e.g.  in  the  challenge,  "  Which  of  you 
convinceth  Me  of  sin?"  But  far  more  important  than 
that  negative  condition  is  the  positive  presence  of  good- 
ness which,  within  the  range  of  His  moral  probation, 
Jesus  exhibited  in  absolute  degree.  "  I  seek  not  Mine 
own  will,"  He  says,  "  but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me." 
"  I  do  always  the  things  that  are  pleasing  to  Him." 
Clearly,  therefore,  it  is  in  the  last  analysis  a  being  of  a 
unique  order  which  this  Gospel  presents  to  us.  The 
human  nature  which  Jesus  indubitably  possesses  only  par- 
tially explains  Him.  Other  men  are  "  children  "  of  God, 
but  He  is  "  the  Son  "  in  the  absolute  sense,  and  God  is 
"  His  own  Father,"  the  two  possessing  in  the  mystery  of 
the  Divine  nature  a  bond  between  them  which  passes 
beyond  the  ethical  into  the  metaphysical.  This  explains 
the  mysterious  aloofness  with  which  Jesus  moves  among 
men,  as  if  the  light  of  other  days  shone  in  His  eyes,  and 
His  thoughts  dwelt  in  that  other  world  which  was  His 
true  home.  By  such  a  presentation  of  Jesus  does  John 
fill  out  and  unify  the  partial  conceptions  of  Jesus  which 
previous  thinkers,  e.g.  Paul  and  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  had  furnished.  To  him  more  than 
to  any  other  New  Testament  writer  we  owe  the  doctrine 


30  ST.    JOHN 


of  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  so  that  his  Gospel  has  justly 
been  described  as  "  the  Gospel  of  the  Incarnation."  It 
is  quite  true  that  John  leaves  some  questions  unanswered. 
He  is  silent  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  Divine  and 
human  natures  became  blended  in  Christ;  he  says 
nothing  (save  in  a  doubtful  variant  of  i.  13)  concerning 
the  dogma  of  the  supernatural  birth,  neither  does  he 
tell  us  what  limitations  the  Logos  submitted  to  on  His 
entrance  into  a  human  form.  All  that  John  does  is  to 
put  the  two  natures  side  by  side  in  Jesus,  leaving,  sub- 
sequent reflection  to  determine  the  mode  and  conditions 
of  their  coexistence.  He  does  this  because  he  is  only 
incidentally  a  philosopher,  or  even  a  coherent  thinker. 
He  approaches  Jesus  from  the  side,  not  of  speculation, 
but  of  experience.  What  he  knows  as  a  matter  of  expe- 
rience is  that  in  Christ  God  has  come  nigh  to  him,  and 
has  made  upon  him  so  wonderful  an  impression  that 
only  the  Divine  category  seems  to  befit  Jesus.  Hence, 
whilst  John  summons  many  witnesses  to  testify  to  the 
greatness  of  Jesus — the  Baptist,  the  Old  Testament,  the 
words  and  works  of  Christ — the  final  witness  is  the 
authentication  which  the  Father  has  given  to  the  Son 
in  the  Divine  power  which  has  marked  the  impact  of 
Jesus  upon  the  world.  The  Christian  movement, 
as  it  unrolled  its  wondrous  story  before  the  apostle, 
demanded  for  its  explanation  a  Christ,  as  its  Founder 
and  Sustainer,  who  came  out  of  the  very  bosom  of  God, 
and  tabernacled  among  men  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesh. 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  31 

C— GOD  AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT 

The  theory  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  simply  the 
grafting  of  Philo's  ideas  on  to  the  Christian  stock  breaks 
down,  when  we  consider  its  doctrine  of  God.  On  dif- 
ferent grounds,  philosophical  in  the  case  of  Philo,  re- 
ligious in  that  of  Palestinian  Judaism,  which  regarded 
holiness  as  involving  separation  from  matter,  the  notion 
of  God  as  transcendent  had  become  prevalent  in  the 
first  century.  But  a  God  wholly  transcendent  is  also 
unknown,  since  there  are  no  relations  between  Him  and 
the  world  which  can  become  the  medium  of  His  self- 
manifestation.  Philo  perceived  this  difficulty,  and  hence 
in  his  philosophy  it  is  the  Logos  who  through  patriarch 
and  prophet  acts  as  the  sole  medium  of  Divine  revela- 
tion to  man.  That  idea  reappears  in  this  Gospel.  God 
is  defined  as  "  Spirit,"  by  which  term  is  meant  that  God 
is  lifted  above  the  limitations  of  space  and  time,  and, 
being  immaterial  in  substance  and  imperceptible  to  the 
senses,  is  most  akin  to  that  invisible  element  in  man, 
the  attitude  of  which  to  God  is  the  soul  of  worship 
(iv.  24).  God  being  thus  outside  the  world  known  to 
the  senses,  no  man  has  ever  seen  Him,  and  He  can 
simply  be  known  through  the  only-begotten  Son  who 
has  revealed  Him.  Jesus  is  "  the  Way,"  and  only  by 
Him  can  men  come  to  the  Father. 

Now  in  this  claim  there  may  be  nothing  more  than 
the  Synoptists  report  Jesus  as  affirming  of  Himself  in 


ST.    JOHN 


the  words,  "Neither  doth  any  know  the  Father,  save 
the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to 
reveal  Him."  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  Jesus  we 
have  a  conception  of  God  which  is  unique,  and  that  the 
name  "  Father,"  as  defined  by  the  filial  consciousness  of 
Jesus,  represents  a  doctrine  which  is  both  new  and 
final.  The  glory  of  Jesus  among  the  prophets  of  man- 
kind is  that  He  has  shown  us  God  as  "the  Father." 
Moreover,  in  so  far  as  we  view  the  Logos  as  a  Divine 
principle  of  revelation  which,  eternally  active,  simply 
attained  fullest  utterance  in  the  historic  Jesus,  we  may 
regard  all  truth  as  mediated  by  His  activity,  so  that  every 
wortliy  conception  of  God  which  came  to  birth  in  seers 
and  prophets,  outside  Judaism  as  well  as  in  it,  was  but 
the  unrecognised  product  of  "the  Spirit  of  Christ  which 
was  in  them."  But  we  cannot  be  sure  that  John  took 
this  comprehensive  view.  To  him  Jesus  seems  to  be 
the  sum-total  of  revelation,  so  that  God  can  only  be 
known  as  He  is  known  through  Christ.  Yet  at  this 
point  alone  has  John  affinity  with  the  Logos  doctrine  of 
Philo.  The  Father,  of  whom  Jesus  becomes  the  re- 
vealer,  is  not  simply  a  transcendent  God,  aloof  and 
passionless.  No  !  He  loves  the  world,  gives  His  Son 
for  its  redemption,  raises  the  dead  and  quickens  them, 
draws  men  to  Christ,  is  immanent  in  the  believer,  and, 
speaking  generally,  is  ceaselessly  putting  forth  energy  in 
a  way  which  justifies  a  similar  activity  on  the  part  of  the 
Son.       "My   Father   worketh  hitherto   and   I    work." 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  35 

Even  the  phrase  "  holy  Father,"  like  the  cognate  ex- 
pression "righteous  Father,"  only  lays  stress  on  the 
ethical  perfection  of  God.  The  notion  of  holiness  as- 
meaning  simply  separation  from  the  world  is  absent 
when  the  holiness  of  the  Divine  Father  becomes  the 
plea  on  which  the  high-priestly  Christ  pleads,  not  for 
His  followers'  separation  from  the  world,  but  for  their 
protection  from  its  evil  (xvii.  11,  15).  And  finally,  we 
see  again  and  again  that  the  controlling  element  in  Gody 
as  John  presents  Him,  is  love.  But  what  does  that 
conception  imply  but  the  ceaseless  forth-going  of  the 
Divine  to  the  human,  the  constant  entrance  of  God  into* 
relations  in  which  His  love  may  find  satisfaction  as  it 
enriches  and  saves  ? 

The  Johannine  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  requires 
lengthier  examination.  Part  of  the  prophetic  forecast 
concerning  the  Messianic  time  was,  that  it  would  be 
marked  by  a  great  access  of  the  Divine  activity  described 
as  an  "  outpouring  of  the  Spirit."  The  Spirit,  moreover, 
was  associated  with  the  Messiah  Himself.  Both  of 
these  ideas  find  a  place  in  the  Johannine  doctrine.  Ta 
begin  with,  though  John  supplies  no  account  of  the 
Baptism  of  Jesus,  the  Baptist  is  made  to  refer  to  it  as 
marked  by  the  descent  upon  Jesus  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
(i.  33).  Evidently  that  was  regarded  by  the  Evangelist 
as  the  central  element  of  the  rite  in  its  significance  for 
Jesus — the  reception  by  Him  of  the  Divine  equipment 
for  His  Messianic  career.     It  may  have  been  John's  wish 

c 


34  ST.    JOHN 


to  emphasise  the  spiritual  chrism  as  also  the  central 
element  in  Christian  baptism.  At  all  events  it  is  signifi- 
cant that,  whilst  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
made  by  Jesus  in  His  talk  with  Nicodemus  to  depend 
on  birth  "  of  water  and  the  Spirit "  (a  phrase  which,  as 
most  interpreters  are  agreed,  refers  to  baptism  on  its 
two  sides,  the  formal  and  the  symbolical),  emphasis  is 
laid  on  the  activity  of  the  Spirit  as  alone  giving  worth  to 
the  ordinance.  Only  as  the  outward  rite  is  attended  by 
the  inward  reception  of  the  Spirit  does  it  pass  from  a 
religious  form  into  a  means  of  grace.  So  far  as  Jesus  is 
concerned,  the  intimate  communion  of  thought  and  will 
existing  between  Him  and  the  Father  is  frequently  re- 
ferred to,  but  only  once  is  the  Holy  Spirit  associated 
with  it.  In  what  is  clearly  one  of  John's  own  medita- 
tions (iii.  31-34),  the  message  of  Jesus  is  described  as 
concerned  with  "  heavenly  things,"  which  one  who  is  of 
the  earth,  even  though  he  be  a  prophet,  cannot  declare 
save  with  the  limitations  which  attach  to  his  earthly 
origin.  But  Jesus  is  a  native  of  the  sphere  to  which  the 
heavenly  realities  belong,  and,  therefore,  is  above  all 
other  seers  and  prophets,  since  He  speaks  of  what  He 
has  seen  and  heard.  His  moral  and  intellectual  faculties 
being  quickened  in  this  act  of  communication  by  the 
endowment  of  the  Spirit  without  measure.  Thus  does 
John  set  Jesus  apart,  and  beholds  in  Him  and  His 
teaching  a  plenary  activity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

And   that    which    belonged    to   Jesus    during    His 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  35 

ministry  is  passed  on  by  Him  to  His  Church.  The  con- 
ceptions of  this  Gospel  on  this  subject  are  extremely 
definite.  So  absolutely  restricted  at  first  to  Jesus 
Himself  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  a  saying  about  rivers  of 
living  water  (vii.  39)  is  interpreted  by  the  Evangelist  as 
referring  to  the  Spirit,  which,  he  says,  "  they  that  believed 
on  Him  {i.e.  Jesus)  were  to  receive :  for  the  Spirit  was  not 
yet  given,  because  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."  In  perfect 
accord  with  this  view  is  the  teaching  in  the  Upper 
Room  that  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  de- 
pendent on  the  departure  of  Jesus.  "It  is  expedient 
for  you  that  I  go  away  :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the 
Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  "  (xvi.  7).  Not  until 
after  the  Resurrection,  when  the  process  of  Christ's 
separation  from  the  disciples  and  of  His  glorification 
had  already  begun,  does  Jesus  breathe  upon  them,  and 
say,  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost."  When  we  see 
that  that  passage  occurs  in  close  connection  with  a 
description  of  what  were  to  be  the  functions  of  the 
Church,  viz.  the  discipline  of  its  members  and  the 
mission  to  the  unsaved  world,  it  is  not  strained  exegesis 
to  infer  that  it  is  the  actual  endowment  and  tasks  of  the 
early  Church  which  are  there  vividly  receiving  prophetic 
description.  The  broad  fact  remains  that  the  Spirit  is 
regarded  as  belonging  to  the  Church  only  after  the 
glorification  of  Jesus.  He  takes  the  place  of  the  absent 
Christ.  In  so  far  as  the  Spirit  was  with  the  disciples 
during  the  earthly  ministry  of  Jesus,  He  was  only  with 


36  ST.    JOHN 


them  as  He  was  operative  in  Christ.  Such,  at  any  rate, 
seems  to  be  the  meaning  compelled  by  the  distinction 
of  both  tense  and  phrasing  in  the  words,  "  He  dwelleth 
with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you"  (xiv.  17).  He  who  even 
then  dwelt  with  the  disciples,  because  He  was  present 
in  the  Master  with  whom  they  lived,  was  to  pass 
from  an  external  Power  embodied  in  Christ  only  to  an 
inward  Presence  existing  in  all  His  followers. 

It  is  upon  these  two  things — the  inwardness  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  restriction  of  His  indwellingto  the  Church 
— that  emphasis  is  laid.  The  world  cannot  receive 
Him,  because  it  lacks  affinity  for  Him ;  "  it  beholdeth 
Him  not,  neither  knoweth  Him."  He  belongs  simply 
to  the  Church  because  His  reception  (spoken  of  some- 
times as  if  it  were  that  of  the  Father  and  the  Son)  is 
morally  conditioned  ;  it  is  possible  only  to  those  who  love 
Christ  and  keep  His  words.  Action  upon  the  sinful 
world  is  contemplated,  for  He  is  to  bring  to  it  conviction 
concerning  sin  and  righteousness  and  judgment,  but  this 
action  is  not  from  within,  but  from  without ;  indeed  it  is 
the  Holy  Spirit  present  in  the  Church  and  fortifying  its 
witness  which  is  thus  to  convict  the  world.  The  Spirit 
dwelling  in  Christ  was  subsequently  to  have  His  earthly 
home  in  the  Church,  which  thus  in  its  organic  form 
represented  a  second  Incarnation,  that  final  tabernacling 
of  God  with  men  of  which  it  could  be  said,  "  He  shall 
abide  with  you  for  ever."  Taking  the  place  of  the 
departed  Christ,  the  Spirit  was  to  be  to  the  disciples  all 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  37 

that  Christ  had  been,  "  another  Comforter  "  or  Paraclete, 
standing  by  their  side  to  defend  them  when  imperilled, 
turning  their  sorrow  into  joy,  enabling  them  to  do  the 
"greater  works  "  seen  in  the  spiritual  transformations  of 
the  apostolic  age,  and  guiding  them  into  all  truth  con- 
cerning Him  whose  disciples  they  had  been.  Of  all  the 
functions  of  the  Spirit  the  last  is  viewed  as  supreme. 
The  Paraclete  is  *'  the  Spirit  of  truth,"  and  His  main 
work  is  prophetic,  viz.  the  interpretation  of  Christ.  "  He 
shall  take  of  Mine,"  says  Jesus,  "and  reveal  them  unto 
you."  Not  only  was  He  to  bring  all  things  to  remem- 
brance, but  the  disciples  were  to  see  in  sayings  and 
deeds  of  Jesus  a  meaning  which  had  previously  escaped 
them.  And  to  illumination  of  the  past  was  to  be  added 
foresight  of  the  future,  for,  said  Jesus,  "He  shall 
announce  to  you  things  that  are  coming."  Yet  never  is 
the  Spirit  an  independent  witness  speaking  of  Himself, 
but,  for  the  past.  He  repeats  the  message  of  Jesus,  and, 
for  the  rest,  Jesus  now  declares  from  heaven  through 
the  Spirit  the  "  many  things  "  which  He  could  not  speak 
on  earth,  for  "  all  that  the  Spirit  heareth  that  doth  He 
speak."  Hence  all  new  truth  concerning  Christ  and 
His  redeeming  purpose  into  which  the  Church  entered 
after  His  ascension  was  viewed  as  the  gift  of  the 
risen  Christ,  continuing  from  heaven  His  earthly 
ministry.  To  the  Church  He  who  was  the  theme  of 
its  Gospel  was  also  the  maker  of  its  theology. 

Such,  at  any  rate,  was  the  view  of  John,  and  those  who 


38  ST.    JOHN 


see  in  the  discourses  of  this  Gospel  John's  own  reflec- 
tions fused  with  recollections  of  what  Jesus  had  said,  yet 
all  without  qualification  put  into  the  lips  of  Jesus,  regard 
that  mode  of  expression  as  not  so  much  a  literary 
artifice,  as  a  courageous  and  sincere  application  of  the 
view  that  the  whole  had  come  from  Christ ;  it  had  been 
spoken  to  John,  either  to  his  ear  or  in  his  heart,  by  Jesus 
Himself.  That  brings  us  to  what  seems  a  certain  confu- 
sion of  thought  in  John's  presentation  of  this  view.  In 
most  of  the  sayings  in  the  Upper  Room  the  Paraclete 
is  apparently  distinct  from  Jesus.  He  is  "another" 
Comforter,  i.e.  another  being  of  the  same  order  as  Jesus 
Himself.  Sent  by  the  Father  at  the  entreaty  of  the  Son, 
He  comes  to  fill  the  gap  caused  by  the  withdrawal  of 
Jesus.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  certain  sayings 
where  the  new  visitant  is  identified  with  Jesus.  "  I  will 
not  leave  you  orphans,"  says  Jesus,  "  I  will  come  to 
you."  "  We  will  come  to  Him,"  He  says  once  again, 
there  uniting  the  Father  with  Himself  in  the  indwelling 
of  the  Spirit.  In  the  saying  *'  I  have  declared  unto 
them  Thy  name,  and  will  declare  it "  (xvii.  26),  the 
natural  reference  in  the  future  phrase  is  to  the  added 
revelation  which  the  disciples  were  to  receive  in  the 
dispensation  of  the  Spirit.  How  is  this  apparent  incon- 
sistency of  statement,  which  meets  us  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament,  e.g.  in  II.  Cor.  iii.  17,  to  be  explained? 
We  think  that  the  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the 
New  Testament  view  of  the  Spirit  as  absorbed  with  the 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  39 

continuation  of  the  work  of  Jesus.  He  is  not  pictured 
as  discharging  independent  functions.  He  simply  con- 
tinues the  interrupted  ministry  of  Jesus,  keeps  green  the 
memory  of  what  He  said  and  did,  expounding  its  deeper 
significance,  and  at  the  same  time  supplementing  it  in 
word  and  deed.  The  Old  Testament  idea  of  the  Spirit 
as  the  underlying  principle  of  life  in  man  and  the 
universe  disappears,  or  is  transferred  to  the  Logos,  and 
the  Spirit,  withdrawn  from  the  world,  moves  wholly 
within  the  Church,  and  there  is  so  engaged  with  the 
person  and  history  and  purpose  of  Christ  that  to  the 
consciousness  it  is  as  if  He  were  Jesus  over  again,  Jesus 
hidden  from  men's  eyes  that  He  might  enthrone  Himself  in 
their  hearts.  It  is  in  this  identity  of  function  that  we  must 
seek  the  explanation  of  the  apparent  identity  of  agent. 

That  this  identity,  however,  is  more  than  apparent  it 
would  be  presumptuous  to  say.  John's  language,  unless 
we  are  to  withhold  from  words  their  natural  meaning, 
seems  to  point  to  distinctions  of  a  personal  kind  within 
the  Godhead.  The  Holy  Spirit  passes  from  an  Influence 
to  a  Person,  for  not  only  is  He  represented  by  the 
masculine  personal  pronoun — an  unusual  usage,  which 
cannot  be  hastily  dismissed  as  a  personification — but 
the  functions  of  teaching,  &c.,  ascribed  to  Him  are  such 
as  fall  properly  within  the  sphere  of  personal  activity. 
Moreover,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Logos,  identified  with 
the  historic  Jesus,  is  expressly  declared  to  be  "  God." 
Hence  there  is,  according  to  this  Gospel,  a  plurality  in 


40  ST.    JOHN 


God,  a  threefoldness  which,  none  the  less,  was  felt  to 
be  compatible  with  monotheism,  for  the  Father  is  re- 
ferred to  as  "the  only  God"  and  "the  only  true  God.'' 
How  the  Evangelist  held  and  harmonised  the  two  con- 
ceptions he  does  not  say,  any  more  than  he  speaks  con- 
•cerning  the  Spirit's  relation  to  the  Logos  or  to  the  world 
prior  to  the  Christian  era.  But  if  John  leaves  some  of 
our  questions  unanswered,  the  explanation  is  that,  whilst 
formulating  a  theology,  he  is  still  more  declaring  an 
•experience.  It  is  less  the  philosopher  who  speaks  than 
the  Christian  furnishing  philosophy  with  the  raw  material 
for  the  construction  of  a  final  synthesis.  Starting  with 
his  monotheistic  faith,  the  writer  feels  that  the  God  of 
his  nation  had  come  nigh  to  men  in  Christ  in  a  manner 
so  vivid  and  unique  that  nothing  but  a  conception  of 
Jesus  as  Himself  Divine  seemed  to  fit  the  facts  ;  in  Him 
God  Himself,  and  not  simply  a  Divine  messenger,  had 
appeared  among  men.  Nor  was  this  all,  for  to  their  ex- 
perience of  God  in  Christ  there  had  been  added  another 
manifestation,  subtle,  pervasive,  so  like  in  power  and 
quality  to  that  which  the  Church  had  known  in  Jesus, 
that  it  also  demanded  to  be  conceived  as  personal  and 
Divine.  So  spake  the  voice  of  experience.  The  Church, 
worshipping  the  holy  Father,  felt  that  it  had  been 
founded  by  a  Divine  Son,  and  was  the  home  and 
sphere  of  a  Divine  Spirit.  It  was  for  theology,  with 
philosophy  as  her  handmaid,  to  work  up  these  facts  of 
experience   into   a   scheme  of   thought   which    should 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  41 

possess  unity  with  itself  and  with  the  religious  history 
of  Israel  and  the  race.  A  beginning  was  made  towards 
that  synthesis  when  John  identified  the  Jesus  of  history 
with  the  Logos  of  philosophy.  But  the  entire  problem 
was  too  great  and  complicated  to  be  solved  at  one  stroke. 
It  remained  for  minds  more  deeply  versed  in  philosophy 
than  was  John  to  give  to  his  doctrine  of  God  that  scientific 
formulation  which,  after  much  controversy,  was  essayed 
in  the  great  councils  of  the  Church.  But  the  doctrine 
itself,  founded,  as  it  was,  upon  experience,  was  part  of 
the  evangelical  deposit  which  the  Church  received,  and, 
because  she  could  not  doubt  the  experience,  she  felt  no 
serious  disposition  to  doubt  the  explanation  which  John 
had  attached  to  it.  Her  business,  so  she  felt,  was  not 
to  question  what  she  had  received,  but  to  expound  and 
defend  it.  In  this  way  only  does  post-canonical  litera- 
ture exhibit  advance  upon  the  doctrine  of  God  which  is 
furnished  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 


D.— THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  WORLD 

To  express  the  blessings  of  salvation  John  employs  a 
distinctive  terminology  the  nature  of  which  will  be 
examined  later.  When  we  ask  whether  those  blessings 
are  regarded  as  open  to  all  men,  the  answer  cannot  be 
hastily  given.  There  are  sayings  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
which  suggest  a  universalism  as  complete  as  that  which 
we  find  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  thought  obviously 


42  ST.    JOHN 


moves  in  an  air  freer  than  that  which  prevailed  when 
Paul  fought  his  great  battle  against  Jewish  exclusiveness. 
Not  only  does  Jesus  without  protest  seek  converts 
among  Samaritans,  and  rejoice  at  that  ingathering  of 
the  Gentiles  of  which  the  eagerness  of  some  Greeks  to 
see  Him  was  a  prophecy,  but  He  openly  declares  that 
He  has  other  sheep,  not  of  the  fold  of  Judaism,  and  that 
His  intention  is  to  gather  them  in,  so  that  Jew  and 
Gentile  may  constitute  "one  flock"  under  "one  shep- 
herd." The  death  of  Jesus  was  intended  to  effect  that 
consummation  (xi.  52).  When,  again,  we  are  told  that 
God  loved  the  world,  and  in  proof  thereof  gave  Christ 
**  that  whosoever  believeth  in  Him  should  not  perish " 
(iii.  16),  universalism  seems  unequivocally  expressed. 
But  whilst  salvation  passes  obviously  beyond  all  racial 
limitations,  and  is  not  the  monopoly  of  a  single  nation, 
the  possibility  of  its  realisation  by  all,  which  alone  can 
give  it  real  universality,  will  depend  upon  how  far  men 
are  able  to  meet  the  conditions  on  which  its  bestowal 
depends.  To  examine  the  teaching  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  on  this  point  is  our  next  task. 

One  characteristic  of  the  Johannine  writings  is  that 
truth  is  set  forth  through  the  medium  of  contrasts.  There 
runs  through  them  what  has  been  called  an  "  ethical 
dualism."  ''Light"  is  set  over  against  "darkness," 
salvation  is  a  passage  from  "death"  to  "life,"  the  little 
community  of  Christian  disciples  is  sharply  distinguished 
from  the  "  world,"  "  things  below  "  are  contrasted  with 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  45 

"  things  above,"  "flesh"  with  "spirit."  Of  these  anti- 
theses the  most  important  for  our  immediate  purpose  is 
that  of  the  Church  and  the  world.  There  are  two  Greek 
words,  both  rendered  by  "world"  in  our  English  Bible^ 
and  both  representing  the  existing  order  of  things,  but 
doing  so  from  different  points  of  view.  One  term,  re- 
produced bodily  in  our  word  "cosmos,"  answers  to  a 
characteristic  Greek  conception  by  which  the  visible 
framework  of  nature,  whether  embracing  the  entire  uni- 
verse or  simply  the  earth,  was  viewed  pre-eminently  as 
the  embodiment  of  order.  The  other  expressed  the 
favourite  Jewish  view,  which,  surveying  reality  under  the 
categories  of  time  and  spirit,  preferred  to  speak  of  seons 
or  epochs,  the  existing  order  being  ethically  and  tem- 
porally conceived.  The  prevalent  term  for  "  world  "  in 
John  is  "cosmos,"  and  into  it  there  have  been  brought 
limitations  of  its  original  usage.  In  only  a  few  phrases, 
e.g.  "  before  the  world  was,"  or  "  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,"  can  it  be  said  to  comprehend  nature  as 
well  as  man.  In  general  it  follows  a  restriction,  first 
manifest  in  Alexandrine  Greek,  by  which  it  denoted 
mankind  viewed  as  a  society  organised  on  a  rational  and 
moral  base.  Such  was  the  "  world  "  which  God  loved 
(iii.  16),  and  into  which  the  Logos  came  as  its  light. 
But  a  still  more  restricted  view  remains.  One  of  the 
familiar  conceptions  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  what 
we  term  "  the  forces  of  evil "  have  an  organised  form. 
They  constitute  a  kingdom  having  Satan  as  its  prince. 


44  ST.    JOHN 


with  invisible  powers  of  the  air,  in  various  grades  and 
ranks,  marshalled  under  his  leadership,  and  leagued 
with  men  on  the  earth,  the  peculiar  sphere  of  Satan's 
activity,  through  whose  hostility  to  goodness  and  truth 
evil  finds  its  supreme  manifestation.  Hence  the  *' world  " 
comes  ultimately  to  mean  the  anti-Christian,  and  even 
non-Christian,  forces  and  personalities  of  the  time,  and 
so  stands  as  the  natural  antithesis  of  the  "Church." 
Our  difficulty  in  realising  this  sharp  contrast  arises 
mainly  because  we  do  not  read  ourselves  back  into  New 
Testament  conditions.  Living,  as  we  are  privileged  to 
do,  in  a  society  which,  even  where  it  is  not  professedly 
Christian,  pays  large  homage  to  Christian  ideals,  we  fail 
to  realise  the  different  conditions  which  prevailed  when 
every  community  of  Christians  was  like  some  outpost  in 
an  enemy's  country,  set  in  an  environment  of  Jewish 
hostility  or  heathen  corruption,  planted  in  a  society 
which  was  either  bitterly  hostile  or  contemptuously  in- 
different, and  was  absolutely  alien  in  faith  and  practice 
and  ideals.  Under  such  circumstances  it  was  only  to 
be  expected  that  the  cleavage  between  the  Church  and 
the  "  world  "  should  be  decisive  and  complete. 

It  is  the  "  world "  thus  conceived  which  appears 
repeatedly  in  this  Gospel,  the  term  occurring  eighty 
times  in  John,  as  against  only  twelve  instances  in  the 
Synoptists,  where,  except  in  one  doubtful  passage  (Matt, 
xviii.  7),  the  predominant  Johannine  meaning  is  absent. 
A  kindred  conception  is  seen  in  another  Johannine  anti- 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  45 

thesis — that  of  "light"  and  "darkness."  It  is  under 
the  latter  figure  that  the  kingdom  of  evil  is  described  by 
Paul  as  well  as  John.  But  this  term,  too,  has  an  ethical 
rather  than  an  intellectual  connotation.  It  denotes  the 
realm,  not  from  which  the  revealing  light  is  withheld, 
but  where  it  is  ineffectual.  "  The  light  shineth  in  the 
darkness,  and  the  darkness  did  not  lay  hold  upon  it " 
(John  i.  5).  Men  who  assume  this  attitude  to  revela- 
tion abide  in  darkness,  and  do  the  deeds  of  darkness, 
and  are  in  league  with  those  whom  Paul,  in  a  phrase 
which  combines  the  two  antitheses  already  referred  to, 
are  "rulers  of  this  world  of  darkness"  (Eph.  vi.  12),  the 
spiritual  personalities  which  hold  sway  in  the  kingdom 
of  evil.  It  is  this  darkness  of  practical  unbelief — 
spoken  of  sometimes,  therefore,  under  the  figure  of 
spiritual  "death" — which  the  Logos  came  to  dispel 
The  "life"  which  was  in  Him  had  revelation  as  its 
function;  it  was  "the  light  of  men."  Its  manifestation 
was  with  a  view  to  revelation.  Hence  John  speaks  of 
the  historic  Jesus  as  "the  true  light,"  the  only  light  that 
had  full  correspondence  with  reality,  and  of  Him  he 
says,  in  what  is  probably  the  correct  translation  of 
i.  9,  that  He  "  by  His  coming  into  the  world  lighteth 
every  man,"  just  as  Jesus,  expressing  a  corresponding 
idea,  is  reported  as  saying,  "  As  long  as  I  am  in  the 
world,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world."  But  this  does  not 
mean  that  the  Hght  actually  dispels  the  darkness.  The 
natural  analogy  fails  at  this  point,  and  the  picture  Johrt 


46  ST.    JOHN 


gives  to  us  is  that  of  Jesus  coming  to  a  world  so 
involved  in  evil  that  darkness  wraps  it  in,  a  darkness 
which  consists  not  simply  of  an  intellectual  blindness, 
but  of  a  radical  perversion  of  will,  with  the  result  that, 
though  the  light  shines,  the  darkness  rejects  it.  Hence, 
in  a  saying  that  is  probably  one  of  John's  own  reflec- 
tions, we  are  told  that  "the  light  is  come  into  the 
world,"  and  that  men,  because  their  deeds  were  evil, 
"loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light,"  with  the 
consequence  that  the  coming  of  the  light  had  for  them 
issues  of  judgment  and  condemnation  (iii.  19). 

Such,  then,  as  John  surveys  the  situation,  was  the 
sharp  cleavage  running  through  human  society.  It  has 
-already  been  pointed  out  that  we  find  it  difficult  to 
make  the  gulf  between  Christian  and  non-Christian  as 
absolute  as  he  appears  to  do.  The  immediate  problem, 
however,  is  whether  he  recognises  any  possibihty  of 
passing  from  the  world  to  the  Church.  For  one  charge 
levelled  against  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  that  it  despairs  of 
the  world.  The  charge  derives  some  specious  colour 
from  the  words  found  in  iii.  20,  21.  There  we  are  told 
that  the  man  who  habitually  does  evil  things  hates  the 
light,  and  shrinks  from  the  conviction  which  approach 
to  it  would  involve,  whilst  he  who  does  the  truth  comes 
to  the  light,  to  find  in  it  the  seal  of  approval  upon  his 
past  deeds.  In  these  and  other  words  some  critics  have 
detected  an  ethical  fatalism.  We  seem  to  be  taught 
that  Jesus  comes  to  reveal  the  moral  quality  of  men 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  47 

rather  than  to  change  it.  A  select  few  are  drawn  to 
Christ  by  spiritual  affinities,  because  already  they  *'are 
of  the  truth,"  or  "  hear  the  truth."  They  are  the  sheep 
who  know  the  Shepherd,  and  are  known  of  Him,  and  by 
a  spiritual  instinct  follow  Him.  But  even  their  coming, 
so  it  is  claimed,  has  in  it  an  arbitrary  element.  They 
come  to  Christ  because  the  Father  draws  them,  or  they 
are  the  Father's  gift  to  the  Son,  or  the  objects  of  Christ's 
gracious  choice.  But  are  these  expressions  recessarily 
fatalistic  in  meaning  ?  Need  they  imply  more  than  that 
a  man's  place  in  Christ's  following,  instead  of  being  the 
result  of  caprice  or  accident,  is  in  harmony  with  spiritual 
law,  and  is  an  expression  of  it  ?  That  in  the  working 
of  this  law  there  is  a  mysterious  and  seemingly  arbitrary 
element  will  be  granted  by  all  who  see  how  far,  as 
regards  both  original  nature  and  environment,  things  are 
ordained  for  us,  so  that  our  very  freedom  is  hedged 
about  with  limitations. 

Whether  all  play  of  the  human  will  issuing  in  moral 
change  is  excluded,  will  appear  as  we  proceed.  For 
over  against  those  who  "are  of  the  truth"  John  puts  the 
sinful  world  which,  habitually  doing  evil,  hates  the  light 
and  refuses  to  come  to  it.  Between  the  two  classes 
there  seems  to  be  an  impassable  gulf.  The  world, 
alienated  from  the  truth,  is  so  hopeless  that  Jesus  does 
not  even  pray  for  it  (xvii.  9).  His  sole  concern  is  for 
the  elect  company  who,  belonging  originally  to  God, 
have  been  granted  by  Him  to  Christ  (ver.  6).     In  this 


48  ST.    JOHN 


presentation  we  seem  far  removed  from  that  optimism 
with  which  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptists  sees  good  even 
in  the  worst,  and,  because  all  are  recoverable,  seeks  all, 
and  despairs  of  none.  But  is  the  difference  as  funda- 
mental as  some  have  supposed  it  to  be  ?  Is  there  not  a 
sense,  e.g.,  in  which  the  judgment  for  which  Jesus  comes 
into  the  world  has  redemptive  significance?  Is  not 
judgment  often  the  beginning  of  salvation  ?  It  is  true 
that,  to  those  who  already  love  the  truth  and  do  it,  the 
presence  of  Christ  means  no  condemnation,  for  they 
move  to  Him  by  moral  affinity,  and  receive  from  Him 
the  deepening  of  what  they  already  are.  But  the  evil 
man  must  first  know  his  sin,  ere  he  will  forsake  it.  He 
may  not  come  to  the  light  in  the  sense  that  he  volun- 
tarily seeks  it,  but  the  light  comes  to  him,  and,  just  as 
the  presence  of  Christ  woke  up  in  the  heart  of  Zacchseus 
a  sense  of  sin,  so  may  judgment  be  the  forerunner  of 
salvation.  But  though  necessary,  it  is  only  initial,  and 
it  is  as  meaning  that  judgment  was  not  Christ's  final 
word,  but  salvation  flowing  out  of  judgment,  that  we 
can  harmonise  the  sayings  in  which  He  sometimes 
affirms  that  judgment  was,  and  again,  as  compared  with 
salvation,  was  not,  the  purpose  of  His  coming.  In  the 
presence  of  Christ  men  knew  themselves  for  what  they 
were,  and  thus  took  the  first  step  towards  becoming 
what  they  should  be. 

Other  considerations  show  that  the  existing  state  of 
men,  and  even  of  the  "  world,"  was  not  to  be  the  final 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  49 

one.  The  very  disciples  had  once  belonged  to  the 
world,  but  had  passed  out  of  it  by  the  choice  of  Christ 
or  the  gift  of  God  (xv.  19,  xvii.  6).  A  passage  from  the 
"  world  "  to  the  Church  had,  therefore,  once  been  open, 
and  that  it  was  not  yet  closed  appears  in  the  fact  that 
Jesus  speaks  of  His  disciples  having  a  mission  to  the 
world  akin  to  His  own,  and  contemplates  those  who 
would  believe  through  their  word  (xvii.  18,  20).  It  is 
suggestive  also  that  Jesus,  in  looking  forward  to  the 
Cross,  sees  in  it  the  crowning  judgment  and  defeat  of 
the  world.  In  that  consummation  of  His  rejection,  the 
unbelief,  which  was  the  world's  gravest  sin,  was  to  stand 
so  manifest  to  the  world  itself  that  Christ's  defeat  would 
really  be  His  victory,  since  "  the  prince  of  this  world  " 
would  be  cast  out  of  his  dominion,  and  the  Cross  itself, 
set  in  the  framework  of  the  glory  which  was  to  follow, 
was  to  multiply  indefinitely  the  influence  of  Christ.  "  I," 
says  He,  "  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all 
men  unto  Myself"  (xii.  32).  It  is  as  if  His  glorification 
through  the  Cross  would,  as  Jesus  viewed  it,  release  the 
*'  world  "  from  the  malign  power  which  held  it  in  thrall, 
and  set  free  in  Christ  new  powers  of  redemption,  so 
that  none  would  finally  resist  His  attraction.  Another 
consideration  pointing  to  the  salvability  of  the  "  world  " 
is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  a  mission  to  it.  He  is  to  bring 
home  to  it  the  sin  of  its  unbelief,  to  make  plain  as 
regards  Christ  the  righteousness  which  has  been  sealed 
by  His  exaltation  to  the  Father,  and  to  disclose   the 

D 


50  ST.    JOHN 


judgment  and  overthrow  of  the  world's  prince  which 
appear  in  the  death  and  glorification  of  Christ.  What 
meaning  could  such  a  mission  have  if  it  did  not  con- 
template redemptive  issues  ?  Surely  the  thought  of  Jesus 
is  that  conditions  were  on  the  eve  of  being  created  by  the 
world's  own  action  which  would  make  for  its  salvation. 

A  similar  conclusion  follows  from  the  antithesis  of 
sons  of  God  and  sons  of  the  devil.  "Ye,"  says  Jesus 
to  His  opponents,  "  are  of  your  father  the  devil " 
(viii.  44).  But  there  is  no  conflict  between  this  saying 
and  the  Synoptic  teaching  concerning  the  universal 
Fatherhood  of  God.  What  too  many  fail  to  see  is  that, 
though  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  all  men  are  not 
necessarily  His  sons.  Fatherhood  and  sonship  are 
conceptions  which  move  on  the  ethical  plane ;  they  are 
concerned  with  moral  attitude  and  disposition,  and  so, 
whilst  God  always  has  the  fatherly  disposition  towards 
man,  man  often  lacks  the  filial  spirit  towards  God. 
Nay,  judged  by  moral  affinities,  men  too  often  are 
children  of  the  devil  rather  than  children  of  God,  and 
the  desires  of  their  father  they  choose  to  do.  But  there, 
again,  a  passage  is  open  from  the  one  relationship  to 
the  other,  and  the  mission  of  Christ  was  not  simply  to 
tell  men  what  they  were ;  it  was  to  make  men  other  than 
they  were.  Moral  affinities  can  be  changed,  for  even 
of  the  spiritually  dead  Jesus  does  not  despair.  Spiritual 
death  can  be  vanquished  by  the  gift  of  life  which  He  brings 
in  overflowing  measure.     "  The  hour  now  is,"  He  says 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  51 

with  exultation,  "  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of 
the  Son  of  God  ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live  "  (v.  25). 
Finally,  what  is  the  symbolical  teaching  contemplated  by 
the  stories  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus  and  of  the  healing 
of  the  man  born  blind  and  of  the  sufferer  at  the  Pool  of 
Bethesda,  if  it  be  not  that  no  sinful  man  need  remain  as 
he  is,  but  that  the  most  desperate  state  of  soul  is  one  for 
which  the  Christ  of  this  Gospel  has  grace  and  salvation  ? 

E.— THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST 

One  broad  distinction  between  the  Pauline  Epistles 
and  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  that,  whereas  to  Paul  the  death 
of  Christ  was  the  very  heart  of  the  Gospel,  so  gathering 
into  itself  the  purpose  of  the  Incarnation  that  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus  receives  but  meagre  attention,  John, 
on  the  other  hand,  places  no  such  emphasis  on  the 
Cross.  Its  relation  to  sin  is  not  absolutely  ignored,  for 
the  Baptist  refers  to  Jesus  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  whilst  some  critics 
have  detected  a  theological  motive  in  John's  apparent 
revision  of  the  Synoptic  chronology,  as  regards  the  day 
on  which  Jesus  was  crucified,  in  that  the  Evangelist 
wishes  to  identify  Him  with  the  paschal  lamb,  thus 
endorsing  Paul's  words :  "  Our  passover  also  hath  been 
sacrificed,  even  Christ "  (I.  Cor.  v.  7).  The  notion  of 
Christ's  death  being  an  atonement  for  sin  is,  on  that 
view,  not  absent  from  John's  thought.     Nevertheless  he 


52  ST.    JOHN 


shows  no  fondness  for  so  depicting  it.  He  prefers, 
first  of  all,  to  put  it  in  line  with  the  previous  ministry, 
and  to  exhibit  it  as  the  culmination  of  Christ's  life.  To 
depict  the  Cross  as  the  main  purpose  for  which  Jesus 
became  incarnate  hardly  accords  with  the  language 
ascribed  to  Jesus  on  the  eve  of  His  passion :  "  I 
glorified  Thee  on  the  earth,  having  accomplished  the 
work  which  Thou  gavest  Me  to  do  "  (xvii.  4).  The 
Cross,  as  the  Fourth  Gospel  exhibits  it,  is  but  Christ's 
fidelity  to  His  vocation  carried  to  the  ultimate.  Jesus 
dying  is  but  the  Shepherd  laying  down  His  life  for  the 
sheep,  or  the  Master  giving  to  His  friends  the  highest 
manifestation  of  His  love.  In  so  far  as  the  Cross  has 
a  distinct  meaning,  it  is,  secondly,  the  glorification  of 
Jesus.  With  its  shame  banished  to  the  background,  it 
is  the  lifting  up  of  Jesus  from  the  earth,  the  beginning 
of  that  exaltation  in  which,  like  a  spiritual  magnet, 
Jesus  would  draw  all  men  to  Him,  and  gather  into  one 
family  the  scattered  children  of  God.  Like  a  grain  of 
wheat  which  perishes  but  to  renew  itself  in  ampler 
fashion,  Christ's  death,  viewed  as  the  first  stage  in  His 
withdrawal  to  the  unseen,  meant  release  from  the 
limitations  which  had  beset  Him  in  the  incarnate  state, 
and  entrance  upon  unexampled  glory  and  might. 

It  may  be  that  John  was  less  disposed  to  put  special 
emphasis  upon  the  Cross,  because  to  him  the  whole 
career  of  Jesus  had  such  deep  significance.  To  him 
incarnation  is  a  larger  idea  than  atonement.      His 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  53 

normative  idea  is  that  of  Jesus  as  the  self-revelation  of 
God.  Sin,  therefore,  which  is  illustrated  in  this  Gospel 
by  the  growing  estrangement  of  the  Jews  from  Jesus 
and  their  ultimate  rejection  of  Him,  is  in  its  gravest  and 
inclusive  form  unbelief  in  Christ,  Jesus  being  what  He 
was,  the  unveiling  of  God  Himself  to  man,  how  could 
there  be  deeper  guilt  or  greater  perverseness  than  to 
turn  away  from  perfect  truth  and  holy  love,  to  have  God 
reveal  His  glory  to  men,  and  yet  for  them  to  be  blind  to 
it  or  despise  it  ?  Sin  became  blacker  when  men  sinned 
against  light  such  as  that,  and  it  was  the  grief  of  Jesus 
that  the  revelation  by  which  He  sought  to  save  men 
only  involved  some  in  deeper  guilt.  "If  I  had  not 
come  and  spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin  :  but 
now  they  have  no  excuse  for  their  sin  "  (xv.  22).  John's 
exposition  of  sin  may  seem  meagre,  but  the  secret  is  that 
he  is  simply  concerned  with  sin  as  it  stood  expressed  in 
the  world's  attitude  to  Jesus.  In  the  way  of  revelation 
He  was  the  best  that  God  could  give  us;  for,  unlike 
prophets  and  lawgivers  who  had  but  spoken  in  God's 
name,  or  the  Baptist,  who,  at  the  most,  had  been  only 
a  witness  to  the  Light,  Jesus  was  the  Light  itself;  He 
was  "  the  Truth,"  the  ultimate  reality  of  things  brought 
within  human  comprehension,  God  Himself  revealed  in 
human  flesh.  And  being  the  best,  He  was  also  the  last, 
for  even  such  further  truth  as  the  Spirit  would  furnish 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  simply  concerned  with  the  fuller 
exposition  of  that  historic  revelation  which  had  already 


54  ST.    JOHN 


been  given.  So  the  whole  theology  of  this  Gospel  is 
Christo-centric,  and  since  its  central  truth  is  Jesus  the 
Incarnation  of  God,  all  other  ideas,  sin  included,  are 
construed  in  relation  thereto,  and  the  only  sin  which 
concerns  the  writer  is  the  rejection  of  Christ.  To  see 
Him,  and  yet  not  believe  in  Him — that  is  the  sin  of  sins. 
We  see,  therefore,  why  no  special  stress  is  laid  upon 
the  death  of  Christ.  Instead  of  approaching  the  Cross 
by  way  of  the  Law  and  sin,  as  Paul  does,  John  seeks 
a  synthesis  which  will  cover  the  whole  earthly  life  of 
Jesus,  and  this  he  finds  in  the  notion  of  incarnation. 
Jesus  was  the  Divine  Son  living  under  human  conditions 
that  He  might  reveal  God.  Hence  the  humiliation  of 
that  life  is  lost  in  the  glory  which  John  sees  continually 
breaking  through  it.  It  is  consonant  with  this  interpre- 
tation that  the  two  main  categories  under  which  the 
work  of  Jesus  is  described  are  those  of  light  and  life. 
He  is  the  light-bringer  and  the  life-giver.  The  two  ideas 
are  combined  in  the  somewhat  difficult  saying  concern- 
ing the  Logos :  "  In  Him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the 
light  of  men,"  i.e.  the  activity  of  the  Logos  was  manifested 
in  the  sphere  of  revelation.  But  if  that  be  so,  is  the 
light  which  belongs  to  what  we  call  natural  religion 
included,  or  is  the  reference  simply  to  the  revelation 
brought  by  the  Jesus  of  history .?  Tempting  as  is  the 
former  interpretation,  two  sayings  already  referred  to,, 
one  a  saying  of  Jesus  :  "  As  long  as  I  am  in  the  world 
I  am  the  light  of  the  world,"  and  the  other  a  description 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  55 

of  Him  as  "  the  true  light  which  by  its  coming  into  the 
world  lighteth  every  man,"  appear  to  favour  the  latter 
construction.  In  other  words,  John  is  not  surveying 
the  whole  movement  of  revelation ;  his  gaze  is  restricted 
to  that  portion  which  was  mediated  by  Jesus.  That  is 
so  perfect  and  direct  that  to  John  nothing  else  counts. 
Just  as  Abraham's  joy  was  in  foreseeing  Christ's  day,  so 
even  the  Old  Testament  is  valuable  only  in  so  far  as  it 
testifies  of  Christ.  Contrasted  with  the  Law  which  was 
given  by  Moses,  are  the  "grace  and  truth  "  which  came 
by  Jesus  Christ  (i.  17).  Hence  to  John  revelation  is 
summed  up  in  Christ.  "  The  only  begotten  Son, 
which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared 
Him." 

But  whether  Jesus  calls  Himself  Light  or  Truth,  what 
He  means  is  that,  where  God  is  concerned,  He  brings 
men  into  touch  with  reality,  He  has  the  power  to  impart 
true  knowledge.  His  unique  relation  to  God,  and 
the  fact  that  He  is  a  native  of  that  sphere  to  which 
"heavenly  things"  belong,  give  Him  supreme  qualifica- 
tions to  reveal  God.  And  how  valuable  is  the  service 
which  Jesus  thus  renders  to  men !  Goodness  may  not 
in  this  Gospel  be  identified  with  knowledge,  but  they 
are  closely  allied.  In  the  recognition  of  God  as  He 
stands  unveiled  in  Christ,  is  for  John  the  beginning  of 
new  life  in  the  soul.  It  is  by  knowing  the  truth  so 
disclosed  that  men  become  free  with  the  freedom  be- 
longing to  a  son,  in  contrast  to  the  bondage  attaching 


56  ST.    JOHN 


to  a  slave  (viii.  32).  That  life  of  sonship,  again,  is 
possible  "  to  them  that  believe  on  "  Christ's  name  (i.  12), 
i.e.  yield  themselves  to  all  that  is  implied  in  the  revela- 
tion which  He  brings.  Most  interesting,  too,  is  the 
power  which  again  and  again  is  assigned  to  the  words 
of  Jesus.  They  judge  the  disobedient,  cleanse  the 
hearts  of  the  disciples  (xv.  3),  and  are  life-giving.  **  Life 
eternal,"  says  Jesus,  is  "  that  they  should  know  Thee, 
the  only  true  God,  and  Him  whom  Thou  didst  send, 
even  Jesus  Christ "  (xvii.  3).  Upon  such  a  saying  as  this 
those  who  see  in  this  Gospel  simply  an  interpretation  of 
the  Christian  faith  in  terms  of  Gnosticism  base  their  con- 
clusion. To  the  Gnostic  the  deliverance  of  the  soul, 
which  was  primarily  release  from  bondage  to  matter  and 
the  senses,  came  simply  through  a  knowledge  of  itself 
as  divine,  such  a  perception  being  beyond  ordinary  men 
and  possible  only  to  an  intellectual  aristocracy.  But 
John  is  far  removed  from  this  worship  of  mere  intellect. 
If  he  borrows  Gnostic  terms,  he  puts  into  them  his  own 
meaning.  When  he  represents  Jesus  as  saying,  "If  a 
man  keep  My  word,  he  shall  never  see  death"  (viii.  51), 
much  more  than  mere  apprehension  of  His  teaching  is 
implied.  He  speaks  of  His  words  "  abiding  "  in  men ; 
He  calls  men  to  "  come  to  "  Him,  to  "  believe  in  "  Him 
— phrases  which  denote  a  moral  attitude,  such  an 
acceptance  of  both  the  message  and  the  Messenger  as 
ensures  that  the  truth  becomes  a  conviction  by  which 
men  live.     It  is  in  a  knowledge  issuing  in  life  and  a 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  57 

faith  justifying  itself  by  works,  and  not  in  the  arid  in- 
tellectualism  of  Gnosticism,  that  this  Gospel  grounds  our 
salvation. 

Similarly  Jesus  is  the  giver  of  life.  Once  again  the 
Evangelist  is  interpreting  Christ  in  terms  of  experience. 
As  surely  as  Jesus  had  brought  to  men  a  new  revelation, 
so  had  He  been  to  them  the  source  of  a  new  moral 
energy  so  marvellous  that  the  Christian  experience  con- 
stituted thereby  had,  in  contrast  to  the  previous  state, 
been  a  passage  from  death  unto  life.  To  describe  such 
an  experience  the  word  "life"  had  already  been  con- 
secrated by  Hebrew  usage.  "  Life,"  as  the  Old  Testa- 
ment employs  it,  is  a  rich  term,  including  bodily  life, 
for  the  concrete  thought  of  the  Hebrew  did  not  con- 
template a  disembodied  existence  for  man,  but  regarded 
life,  whether  here  or  hereafter,  as  belonging  to  person- 
ality in  the  completeness  of  body  and  spirit.  But  the 
"life"  so  expressed  was  ethically  conceived,  being 
supremely  the  man  set  in  true  relations  to  the  living 
God.  How  Paul  took  over  this  idea  and  put  it  to 
Christian  use  is  seen  from  the  most  cursory  study  of 
his  Epistles.  He  realised  what  new  powers  of  service 
and  moral  achievement  had  come  to  his  nature  through 
the  impact  of  Christ  upon  it.  To  be  a  Christian  was  to 
enter  into  "newness  of  life,"  to  become  "alive  unto 
God  in  Christ  Jesus."  Even  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus  became  but  symbolical  of  an  experience  in 
which  the  new  humanity  constituted  by  Him  died  to  the 


58  ST.    JOHN 


sinful  principle  and  rose  into  the  victorious  life  of 
righteousness.  John  takes  us  to  the  same  goal  by  a 
slightly  different  rout-e.  In  his  Gospel  "  life  "  has  mainly 
the  rich  ethical  meaning  which  was  a  bequest  from 
Judaism.  Some  expositors,  e.g.  Prof.  Scott,  detect  in 
it,  in  addition,  a  quasi-metaphysical  element,  due  to  the 
Evangelist's  contact  with  Greek  thought.  As  the  Father 
had  life  in  Himself,  so  had  He  given  to  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  Himself,  that  He  might  impart  it  to  man.  That 
this  life  is  in  some  way  different  from  what  men  possess 
by  nature  is  indeed  suggested  by  the  fact  that  it  is  by  a 
new  birth  that  men  enter  upon  it.  But  that  this  implies 
the  communication  to  man,  as  by  some  spiritual  magic, 
of  a  share  in  the  Divine  essence  we  are  by  no  means 
persuaded.  The  freedom  and  joyousness  of  true  ethical 
relations — that  to  the  Jew  was  "  life  " ;  and  the  language 
of  this  Gospel  is  satisfied  if  we  take  "  life  "  to  mean  the 
soul  abiding  in  joyous  and  harmonious  fellowship  with 
the  living  God. 

Of  this  life  the  Fourth  Gospel  knows  no  source  but 
Christ.  He  is  the  central  stem  upon  which  the  disciples, 
as  branches  of  the  vine,  depend.  And  here,  once  again, 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  knowledge.  To  John  the  first 
step  in  religion  is  to  recognise  Jesus  for  what  He  is — 
the  sent  of  God  and  the  revelation  of  God.  There  are 
no  half-tones  in  John's  picture.  He  takes  no  account 
of  the  light  belonging  either  to  natural  religion  or  to 
heathen  faiths.     To   him   distinctions   are   sharp   and 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  59 

simple.  There  is  the  world  on  the  one  hand,  which 
does  not  know  God  at  all  (in  viii.  55  even  the  Jewish 
opponents  of  Jesus  are  also  declared  to  be  in  this  state 
of  ignorance),  and  there  is  Jesus  knowing  Him  and 
alone  revealing  Him  to  men.  He,  therefore,  who  would 
come  into  real  fellowship  with  the  Father  must  come 
through  Christ,  "the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life." 
There  was  no  other  path.  He  was  the  Door  of  the 
sheep.  All  who  had  come  before  Him,  purporting  to 
discharge  His  functions,  were  "thieves  and  robbers." 
A  uniqueness  in  the  sphere  of  revelation  so  surpassing 
as  to  amount  to  positive  loneliness  is  the  element  in 
Christ  which,  according  to  John,  makes  a  right  view  of 
Him  so  important.  How  important  it  is  we  may  learn 
from  the  fact  that  knowing  and  believing  are  used 
almost  indifferently,  e.g.  in  xvii.  3,  xx.  31,  to  express 
the  condition  on  which  "  life  "  is  bestowed,  or  the  two 
notions  are  conjoined,  as  in  the  saying  :  "  They  knew  " 
(better  as  inceptive  aorist,  "  they  learnt,  apprehended  ") 
"  of  a  truth  that  I  came  forth  from  Thee  and  they  believed 
that  Thou  didst  send  Me  "  (xvii.  8).  It  is  in  harmony 
with  that  representation  that,  as  the  result  of  Christ's 
manifestation  of  His  glory  at  Cana,  "  His  disciples 
believed  on  Him"  (ii.  13),  and  that  the  miracles  gener- 
ally are  presented  as  "  signs,"  and,  instead  of  being,  as 
in  the  Synoptists,  a  response  to  faith,  are  creative  of  it. 
Even  then  faith  is  more  than  knowledge,  if  by  the  latter 
is  meant  a  bare  assent  to  certain  intellectual  conceptions. 


6o  ST.    JOHN 


Faith  is  not  only  the  recognition  of  reality,  but  the 
adoption  towards  it  of  an  appropriate  moral  attitude. 
Notwithstanding  the  emphasis  which  John  places  upon  a 
right  view  of  Christ  as  the  manifestation  of  God,  that  is 
to  him  only  a  first  and  necessary  step  towards  such  an 
attitude  of  the  entire  moral  personality  to  Jesus  as  shall 
embrace  devotion  to  His  person  and  obedience  to  His 
words.  Knowing  has  to  find  its  befitting  complement 
in  being  and  doing. 

One  other  matter,  too  important  to  be  ignored,  remains 
to  be  discussed.  In  the  famous  discourse  on  the  Bread 
of  Life,  Jesus,  in  a  saying  introduced  by  a  solemn 
"Verily,  verily,"  declares:  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  not  life 
in  yourselves"  (vi.  53).  The  idea  conveyed  by  those 
words  is  significant ;  indeed  its  assertion  was  the  main 
reason  why  John  told  once  again  the  story  of  the  Feeding 
of  the  multitude.  Yet  the  language  suggests  that  more 
than  that  miracle  is  in  view.  Criticism  leans  strongly 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  figures  of  eating  Christ's  flesh 
and  drinking  His  blood,  which  do  not  naturally  spring 
from  the  miracle  of  feeding,  have  in  view  the  two  elements 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  has  been  remarked  that  John 
gives  us  no  account  of  the  institution  of  that  sacrament. 
What  he  wished  the  Church,  however,  to  understand  by 
it  is  supplied  here.  Briefly,  his  endeavour  is  to  draw 
the  Church  away  from  the  outward  form  to  the  inward 
meaning.     What  the  Lord's  Supper  was  to  mean,  if  it 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  6i 

was  to  possess  any  value,  was  not  the  mechanical 
reception  of  certain  emblems,  but  a  mystical  appropria- 
tion of  Christ  Himself,  who,  as  the  author  of  spiritual 
life,  was  also  its  sustainer.  Just  as  in  baptism,  as  we 
have  seen,  John  insists  that  it  is  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  attending  it  which  alone  gives  it  efficacy,  so 
it  is  the  appropriation  by  the  believer  of  Christ,  the 
living  Bread,  which  is  the  essential  thing  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  How  far  this  teaching  was  meant  to  be  a 
correction  of  unspiritual  ideas  concerning  the  Sacraments 
which  had  grown  up  in  the  Church,  we  need  not  stay 
to  discuss.  Two  things  are  evident :  first,  that  John 
vindicates,  as  against  mere  formalism,  the  supreme  place 
of  the  spiritual  as  the  condition  of  grace,  and  next,  that 
Christ  is  always  the  vital  principle  of  Christian  experi- 
ence. It  is  only  such  a  union  with  Christ  as  involves 
the  constant  nourishment  of  the  human  soul  with  His 
life  that  is  the  source  of  spiritual  vitality.  "  He  that 
Cometh  to  Me  shall  not  hunger,  and  he  that  believeth  on 
Me  shall  never  thirst "  (vi.  35) — there,  in  terms  not  so 
obviously  reminiscent  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  idea  is 
once  again  set  forth  that  the  mystical  union  of  Christ 
and  the  believer  mediated  by  the  great  surrender  of 
faith  is  the  way  of  life.  For  thus  to  yield  ourselves  up 
to  Him  is  to  find  our  nature  fed  from  a  Divine  source, 
and  so  wondrously  quickened  that  it  is  as  if  He  who 
is  our  law  without  had  become  our  dynamic  within. 
"  I  live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me." 


62  ST.    JOHN 


F.-THE  LAST  THINGS 

One  fact  concerning  the  eschatology  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  is  that  it  fits  into  a  framework  which  nearly  two 
centuries  of  Jewish  thought  had  made  traditional.  The 
central  episode  round  which  the  whole  drama  revolved 
was  the  inauguration  in  glory  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Various  conditions  had  led  to  that  event  being  conceived 
as  happening  after  an  apocalyptic  fashion,  i.e.  the 
Kingdom  was  to  be  suddenly  established  by  the  dramatic 
intervention  of  God  from  heaven.  According  to  the 
Synoptists  Jesus  taught  that  He  would  play  an  im- 
portant part  in  that  crisis,  for  He  speaks  of  the  Son  of 
Man  "  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven,"  or  "  coming  in 
His  Kingdom  "  or  "  glory," — phrases  which  point  to  a 
dramatic  reappearance  of  Jesus  from  that  unseen  world 
to  which  He  had  gone.  Hence  the  effective  establish- 
ment of  the  Kingdom  and  the  Return  of  Christ  are 
associated  events.  With  them  were  connected  Judgment 
and  Resurrection,  for  these  had  relation  primarily,  not 
as  in  our  thought,  to  death  and  the  future  life,  but 
to  that  new  age  or  world-period  in  which  the  Kingdom, 
finally  set  up  by  God,  was  to  be  an  accomplished  fact. 
To  it  Judgment  was  a  necessary  preHminary,  since  the 
living  needed  to  be  sifted  in  order  to  determine  who  were 
meet  to  "  inherit  the  Kingdom,"  and  who,  by  reason  of 
transgression,  deserved  to  be  excluded  from  it.  The 
dead  too,  had  to  be  raised — the   righteous  that  they 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  63 

might  enjoy  the  fulfilment  of  the  hopes  which  death  had 
frustrated,  the  wicked  that  they  might  taste  the  bitter- 
ness of  exclusion  from  the  new  era  of  bliss.  Hence 
the  Synoptists  speak  of  "  the  day  of  Judgment,"  or  "  that 
day,"  or  "  the  last  day,"  by  this  final  phrase  being  meant 
the  closing  day  of  the  existing  son,  "the  end"  or 
*'  consummation  of  the  age." 

The  Synoptic  presentation  of  the  Last  Things  falls, 
therefore,  into  a  coherent  system,  and  our  first  inquiry 
must  be  whether  this  traditional  framework  reappears 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  answer  is  that  it  does.  The 
Return  of  Christ,  Resurrection,  Judgment — all  are  there. 
In  several  passages  "  the  last  day "  is  explicitly  named 
as  the  occasion  of  both  Resurrection  and  Judgment. 
Moreover,  the  difficulty  which  the  last  chapter  of  this 
Gospel — an  appendix  due  probably  to  the  disciples  of 
John — suggests  as  existing  in  the  Church  because,  in 
spite  of  what  seemed  to  be  a  promise  by  Jesus  that  the 
apostle  should  live  to  see  His  return,  John  had  died,  or 
seemed  likely  to  die,  before  it  took  place,  shows  that  the 
belief  in  the  visible  return  of  Jesus  still  lingered  in  the 
Church  at  the  end  of  the  first  century.  That  difficulty 
proves  also,  as  we  may  note  in  passing,  that  a  return  of 
Jesus  to  the  believer  at  death  does  not,  any  more  than 
His  return  in  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  satisfy  His  promise 
to  the  disciples :  "I  come  again,  and  will  receive  you 
unto  Myself."  But  side  by  side  with  the  traditional 
eschatology  there  is  another  in  which  the  old  terms  are 


64  ST.    JOHN 


used,  but  with  a  transformed,  because  spiritual,  meaning. 
Only  rarely  does  John  refer  to  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
but  it  is  significant  that  on  the  two  occasions  on  which 
the  phrase  is  ascribed  to  Jesus,  the  familiar  conception 
denoted  by  it  is  spiritualised.  In  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  a  spiritual  order 
into  which  admission  is  procured  by  a  birth  from  above, 
whilst  before  Pilate  Jesus  disclaims  the  idea  that  His 
Kingdom  is  "of  this  world,"  and,  therefore,  created  and 
defended  by  material  force.  No !  it  is  a  realm  over  which 
He  is  King  who,  as  witness  unto  "the  truth,"  brings 
those  who  hear  Him  into  the  sphere  of  the  spiritual  and 
the  real  (xviii.  36,  37).  In  this  Gospel,  therefore,  the 
Kingdom  is  a  spiritual  and  present  reality.        _ 

This  conclusion  is  sustained  by  several  converging  lines 
of  evidence,  one  being  the  frequent  use  which  John  makes 
of  the  phrase  "  eternal  life."  In  the  Synoptists  the 
experience  so  defined  belongs  to  the  future,  "  eternal 
life  "  being  not  so  much  endless  existence,  though  the 
notion  of  unending  duration  lay  in  the  background,  but 
the  glorious  experience  which  man  would  enjoy  in  the 
coming  age,  i.e,  in  the  future  and  perfected  Kingdom  of 
God.  Paul  modifies  that  conception  only  so  far  as  to 
insist  that  the  Christian  already  possesses  in  his  present 
endowment  of  the  Spirit  "  an  earnest  of  the  promised 
possession,"  and  that  the  eternal  life  of  the  future  is  the 
harvest  of  a  man's  present  sowing  to  the  Spirit.  But 
John  carries  the  conception  one  step  further.     To  him 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  65 

"eternal  life"  is  an  experience  to  which  men  are  ad- 
mitted here  and  now.  Not  that  the  Synoptic  and  Pauline 
idea  is  wholly  absent.  The  *'  living  water  "  which  Jesus 
gives  wells  up  in  the  recipient  "  unto  eternal  life,"  i.e. 
it  has  *' eternal  life"  as  its  final  outcome.  The  reaper 
gathereth  fruit  "  unto  life  eternal."  *'  He  that  hateth 
his  soul  in  this  world,"  says  Jesus,  "  shall  keep  it  unto 
life  eternal."  But  that  is  not  the  predominant  view. 
John's  startling  contribution  to  Christian  theology  is  that 
the  entire  cycle  of  the  Last  Things  is  spiritualised  and 
brought  into  the  present.  Christ,  instead  of  having  yet 
to  come,  was  already  present  in  the  ministry  of  the 
Spirit.  Abiding  as  a  spiritual  presence  in  the  heart, 
Jesus  still  led  men  into  the  truth,  speaking  no  longer 
*'in  parables"  (xvi.  25),  but  declaring  God  so  openly 
that  those  who  had  never  seen  the  Lord  were  not  less 
favoured  than  they  who  had.  "  Blessed,"  says  Jesus, 
"are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed" 
(xx.  29).  If  such  disciples  saw,  it  was  with  spiritual 
vision,  for  it  is  such  a  transference  from  outward  gaze 
to  inner  perceptidh  which  Jesus  contemplates  when  He 
says,  "A  little  while  and  ye  behold  Me  no  more" — there 
disappearance  from  physical  sight  is  denoted,  for  the 
verb  "  behold  "  denotes  gazing  as  at  a  spectacle ;  "  again 
a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  Me" — that  is  the  new 
and  spiritual  sense  of  His  presence  which  was  to  replace 
the  old  physical  relations  (xvi.  16).  Professor  Scott 
suggests  that  the  perplexity  which,   in  the  context   to 

E 


66  ST.    JOHN 


that  passage,  is  attributed  to  the  disciples  is,  together 
with  the  question  of  Judas,  *'  Lord,  what  is  come  to 
pass  that  Thou  wilt  manifest  Thyself  unto  us  and  not 
unto  the  world  ?  "  a  rhetorical  device  employed  by  the 
Evangelist  to  voice  difficulties  on  this  subject  felt  by  the 
Church  of  his  time.  "  The  solution  of  all  your  diffi- 
culties," he  seems  to  say,  "is  to  realise  that  the  Return 
of  Christ  is  spiritual,  it  is  His  abode  in  the  hearts  of  His 
followers,  His  activity  in  the  Church.  There,  in  a 
manifestation  unseen,  and  to  Christians  universal,  is  the 
true  Parusia  of  Jesus." 

One  passage,  "  I  come  again,  and  will  receive  you  unto 
Myself"  (xiv.  3),  is  admittedly  difficult  to  interpret. 
What  is  the  nature  of  the  coming  there  described,  and 
of  the  fellowship  with  Christ  which  ensues?  Paul's 
teaching  offers  no  sure  clue  to  the  problem,  for,  whilst 
in  an  early  epistle  (i  Thess.  iv.  17)  meeting  the  Lord 
and  being  ever  with  Him  are  connected  with  Christ's 
dramatic  and  visible  reappearance,  in  one  of  his  latest 
letters  (Phil.  i.  23)  "to  be  with  Christ'  is  something 
the  apostle  hopes  to  attain  through  death.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that,  in  the  context  of  xiv.  3,  the  way 
which  Jesus  is  about  to  take,  and  in  which,  therefore,  if 
the  disciples  would  be  with  Him,  they  must  follow  Him, 
is  simply  the  way  to  the  Father,  and  hence  it  has  been 
urged  that  nothing  more  is  meant  by  being  with  Christ  than 
sharing  His  deep  insight  into,  and  fellowship  with,  God. 
In  that  case  *'  I  come  again  "  refers  simply  to  a  spiritual 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  67 

Parusia,  Christ  present  in  the  teaching  Spirit.  But  one 
is  bound  to  add  that  such  an  interpretation  of  the  words 
does  not  seem  obvious,  and  it  seems  preferable  to  admit 
that  here  and  in  the  appendix  we  have  the  Synoptic  idea 
of  a  visible  return  of  Jesus,  the  notion  appearing  else- 
where in  this  Gospel  being  that  of  a  return  which  was 
invisible  and  spiritual.  At  the  same  time  we  are  not  com- 
pelled to  infer,  as  some  scholars  do,  that  the  two  ideas 
represent  separate  layers  of  tradition,  one  conservative 
and  the  other  advanced,  but  only  one  of  them  Johannine. 
Different  as  the  conceptions  are,  they  are  not  incom- 
patible with  each  other.  A  spiritual  presence  of  Jesus 
existing  now  does  not  necessarily  rule  out  the  notion 
of  a  visible  return  in  the  future,  and  one  can  imagine 
the  two  ideas  being,  when  first  grasped,  regarded  as 
supplementary  to,  rather  than  contradictory  of,  each 
other,  and  so  being  tolerated  side  by  side.  It  is  often  by 
supplementing  old  truth,  rather  than  by  abruptly  substi- 
tuting for  it  the  new,  that  men  gradually  pass  to  a  trans- 
formed conception.  So  do  we  find  it  in  the  eschatology 
of  this  Gospel,  and  it  has  been  the  disappointing  delay, 
more  than  once  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
the  visible  return  of  Jesus  which  has  ultimately  caused 
many  thoughtful  people  to  substitute  for  that  expectation 
the  notion  of  a  Christ  already  present  through  His  in- 
dwelling in  the  Church.  They  have  learnt  to  see  in 
that,  and  not  in  some  spectacular  appearing  on  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  "  the  real  presence  "  of  their  Lord. 


6S  ST.    JOHN 


A  similar  spiritualising  of  the  other  features  of 
eschatology  appears  in  this  Gospel.  Resurrection, 
whilst  future  and  bodily,  is  also  present  and  spiritual. 
"  The  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ;  and  they  that  hear 
shall  live  "  (v.  25).  Jesus  even  now  is  "  the  resurrection 
and  the  life"  (xi.  25),  making  dead  souls  to  live  with  a 
life  which  is  "eternal,"  so  that  they  who  believe  do  not 
come  into  judgment,  but  have  passed  out  of  death  into 
life  (v.  24).  Obviously  Jesus  has  in  mind  in  these  arid 
similar  sayings  more  than  escape  from,  or  survival  of, 
physical  death.  The  latter  idea  is  included,  in  the  sense 
that  the  Christian's  existence  after  death  in  the  fulness 
of  his  personality  is  even  now  guaranteed.  But  such  an 
assurance  is  the  corollary  of  that  moral  quickening 
which  contact  with  Christ  has  given  to  the  entire  nature, 
and  in  virtue  of  which  the  man  lives  a  timeless  life,  and 
has  been  lifted  to  a  realm  where  death  is  ineffective. 
Faith  in  Christ  has  so  quickened  his  entire  personality 
that  the  dissolution  of  the  body  has  become  a  negligible 
incident,  and  the  man  can  be  spoken  of  as  never  seeing 
death  (viii.  52,  xii.  25).  Nothing  avails  to  break  the 
continuity  of  life.  Judgment,  again,  is  present  as  well 
as  future,  every  presentation  of  Christ  to  men  compelling 
the  assumption  by  them  of  an  attitude  in  which  moral 
condition  is  declared.  It  is  with  such  representations 
that  John  supplements  the  existing  eschatology.     Doubt 


THE    FOURTH    GOSPEL  69 

may  excusably  be  felt  as  to  whether  a  consummation 
with  the  accessories  which  apocalyptic  pictured,  describes 
fully  the  way  in  which  the  present  order  of  things  will 
move  on  into  the  ideal.  A  visible  return  of  Christ,  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  placed  in  the  grave,  and  a 
spectacular  judgment  of  the  race,  are  conceptions  which, 
literally  interpreted,  do  not  seem  so  necessary  to  us  as 
they  were  to  the  Jew.  But  the  beliefs  to  which  John 
lifts  us,  viz.  that  man  only  lives  in  reality  as  he  lives  in 
fellowship  with  the  will  and  Spirit  of  God;  that  the 
present  joins  hands  with  the  future  in  the  sense  that  our 
final  state  will  be  but  the  present  movement  of  the 
personality  carried  forward  to  its  goal;  that  judgment 
even  now  registers  itself  in  our  nature;  that  the  true 
resurrection  is  the  escape  of  the  soul  from  the  trammels 
of  the  flesh  and  the  bonds  of  materialism  into  the  lofty 
spiritualities  of  faith  and  love — these  beliefs  represent 
the  ultimate  facts  of  religion,  and  are  "  things  that  cannot 
be  shaken."  John,  it  is  true,  could  not  altogether 
emancipate  himself  from  his  inherited  conceptions,  and 
so  in  his  writings  we  have  the  old  view  left  mechanically 
side  by  side  with  the  new,  and  no  real  attempt  is  made 
to  harmonise  them.  But  the  fact  remains  that  the  new 
view  is  there,  and  that  the  New  Testament  itself,  there- 
fore, releases  Jesus  from  the  limitations  of  Judaism, 
translates  Him  into  the  universal  sphere,  and  sets  Him 
before  us  in  the  end  as  a  great  Captain  of  Salvation, 


70  ST.    JOHN 


so  far  away  from  us  that  He  embodies  the  ideal,  and  yet 
so  near  to  us  in  love  and  grace,  and  in  the  mystical 
intermingling  of  His  Spirit  with  ours,  that  even  now 
our  feet  move  towards  the  ideal,  and  in  what  we  have 
and  are  through  Him  we  have  the  assuring  guarantee  of 
the  much  more  that  there  finally  shall  be. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE   EPISTLES   OF  JOHN 

So  far  as  these  Epistles  are  concerned,  the  prablem  of 
their  authorship  may  be  very  briefly  dismissed,  because 
most  critics  are  agreed  that  they  emanated  from  the 
same  school  of  thought,  and,  indeed,  from  the  same 
writer,  as  did  the  Fourth  Gospel.  This  latter  view  is 
questioned  by  such  eminent  scholars  as  Pfleiderer, 
Schmiedel,  and  Martineau,  whilst  Wellhausen,  who 
regards  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  a  composite  work,  has 
ventured  the  opinion  that  John  xv.-xvii.  and  the  First 
Epistle  of  John  came  from  the  same  hand.  There  need, 
however,  be  no  serious  hesitation  in  subscribing,  without 
Wellhausen's  limitation,  to  the  commonly  accepted  view. 
The  appearance  of  the  same  key-words  in  both  Gospel 
and  Epistle ;  the  resort  to  antithesis,  already  seen  to  be 
characteristic  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  manifest  in  the 
Epistle  in  such  contrasts  as  Light  and  Darkness,  Love 
and  Hate,  Life  and  Death,  the  Brotherhood  and  the 
World ;  the  resemblance  in  literary  structure  and  style, 
which  is  too  close  for  one  document  to  have  been 
simply  a  laboured  imitation  of  the  other — these  are  con- 


72  ST.    JOHN 


siderations  which  point  to  unity  of  authorship.  Indeed 
the  interesting  theory  has  been  put  forward  that  the 
Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  were  composed  and  sent 
out  together,  the  Epistle  being  a  sort  of  covering  letter 
supplementing  the  Gospel  with  such  definite  and  practi- 
cal injunctions  as  were  demanded  by  the  situation  in 
the  Church  directly  addressed. 

The  absence  of  any  opening  greeting  or  closing  salu- 
tation has  led  some  readers  hastily  to  conclude  that  this 
Epistle  was  a  treatise  issued  at  large  to  the  Church. 
But  John's  appeal  to  "  my  little  children,"  his  descrip- 
tion of  his  contemplated  readers,  or  sections  of  them,  as 
"beloved,"  "  fathers,"  and  "young  men,"  and  his  detailed 
acquaintance  with  their  past  history  and  present  dangers, 
prove  that  he  is  writing  to  a  definite  community,  which, 
if  this  letter  was  written  at  Ephesus,  was  in  all  proba- 
bility one  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor.  The  danger 
with  which  it  was  threatened  was  the  mischievous  in- 
fluence of  certain  heretical  teachers  who  had  once 
belonged  to  the  Church,  but  had  gone  out  from  it  to 
"  the  world,"  the  non-Christian  element  in  society,  with 
which  lay  their  true  affinity  (ii.  19).  They  seem  to  have 
been  fairly  numerous,  and  so  poisonous  in  their  influ- 
ence that  John,  branding  them  as  anti-Christs,  declares 
that  their  appearance  was  in  harmony  with  prediction, 
and  only  represented  that  outbreak  of  virulent  opposition 
to  the  Church  which  was  to  usher  in  "  the  last  hour  " 
and  the  return  of  Christ.     What  their  tenets  were  this 


THE    EPISTLES    OF   JOHN         73 

Epistle  helps  us  to  see.  They  denied  that  "Jesus  is 
the  Christ"  (ii.  22),  i.e.  they  denied  the  identity  of  the 
man  Jesus  with  that  Divine  emanation  which  they  called 
Christ;  to  use  a  phrase  which  is  probably  the  true 
reading  in  iv.  3,  they  "  annulled  "  or  "  dissolved  "  Jesus, 
i.e.  broke  up  the  unity  of  His  historic  manifestation, 
denying  that  Jesus  Christ  had  come  in  the  flesh.  The 
heresy  referred  to  belonged  to  the  Docetic  type  of  Gnosti- 
cism, to  which,  as  well  as  to  Gnosticism  as  a  whole, 
allusion  has  already  been  made  (p.  15).  Moreover, 
with  error  in  creed  was  associated  licence  in  conduct, 
for  the  false  teachers  exhibited  also  that  libertine  and 
antinomian  phase  of  Gnosticism  with  which  we  shall 
make  further  acquaintance  in  the  pages  of  Second  Peter 
and  Jude. 

The  Christians  to  whom  John  wrote  seem  to  have 
been  free  from  this  virus.  Thanks  to  their  keenness  of 
spiritual  perception,  due,  as  the  Epistle  says,  to  "an 
anointing  from  the  Holy  One  "  (ii.  20),  they  had  seen 
its  true  malignity,  and  had  thrust  it  forth.  "  I  have  not 
written  unto  you,"  says  John,  "because  ye  know  not 
the  truth,  but  because  ye  know  it."  Nevertheless  pesti- 
lential falsehood  was  in  the  air  which  they  breathed,  and 
might,  so  insidious  was  its  nature,  find  fresh  access  to 
the  Church,  so  that  not  only  does  John  advise  his 
readers  not  to  believe  "  every  spirit,"  but  "  to  prove  the 
spirits,"  i.e.  to  keep  a  critical  eye  upon  men  who  pro- 
fessed to  be  inspired  teachers,  but,  believing  that  attack 


74  ST.    JOHN 


is  the  surest  defence,  he  makes  a  pronouncement  upon 
the  whole  situation.  And  there  is  significance  in  his 
point  of  departure.  He  starts  from  the  sure  ground  of 
experience.  His  answer  to  doubts  concerning  the 
reality  of  the  Incarnation  was  the  reafltenation  of  the 
apostolic  witness.  "  That  which  we  have  heard,  that 
which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  that  which  we  beheld 
and  our  hands  handled "  concerning  the  manifested 
Word  of  life  "  declare  we  unto  you  also  "  (i.  1-3).  Faith 
finds  its  refreshing  at  the  fountain  of  the  historic  facts. 
But  how  are  they  vouched  for  here  ?  What  is  the 
precise  reference  of  the  "we"  in  the  above  passage? 
Obviously  it  includes  more  than  the  writer,  for  the 
singular  form  of  the  pronoun  is  found  later,  e.g.  in  ii.  7, 
12,  V.  13,  where  he  alone  is  meant.  It  must,  therefore, 
be  the  traditional  and  collective  testimony  of  the  Church, 
derived  in  the  first  instance  from  those  who  had  lived  in 
closest  intimacy  with  Jesus,  to  which  the  quotation  refers. 
More  weight,  of  course,  would  attach  to  the  declara- 
tion made  therein  if  the  writer  himself  had  been  one  of 
the  original  witnesses,  and  his  use  of  "  we  "  predisposes 
us  towards  that  conclusion.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
does  not,  as  would  the  singular,  absolutely  compel  it, 
and  it  may  simply  be  the  well-founded  and,  "  from  the 
beginning,"  the  continuous  witness  of  the  Church  to  the 
facts  of  Christ's  incarnate  life  which  is  here  solemnly 
reaffirmed.  John  feels  that  the  surest  safeguard  against 
speculative  error  is  that  we  should  keep  our  grip  upon 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN         75 

the  facts  of  history.     Faith  is  always  imperilled  when  it 
drifts  from  its  anchorage  in  historic  fact. 

It  was  because  John  discerned  this  peril  that  he  feels 
moved  to  such  strength  of  invective,  calling  the  would- 
be  perverters  of  Christian  truth  liars  and  even  anti- 
christs, direct  and  deadly  antagonists  of  the  faith. 
Their  Docetic  doctrine  of  a  human  Jesus  upon  whom 
the  spiritual  Christ  descended  at  His  baptism,  deserting 
Him  subsequently  prior  to  His  Passion,  he  meets  by 
declaring  that  in  the  Christian  aflHrmation  that  Jesus 
was  the  Son  of  God,  the  whole  historic  Christ  was 
embraced;  not  simply  He  that  came  "by  the  water," 
i.e.  was,  as  Docetism  allowed,  the  recipient  of  the 
Baptism,  but  He  that  came  also  **by  the  blood,"  ue, 
endured  in  reality,  and  not  in  mere  semblance,  the  death 
of  the  Cross  (v.  6).  Nor  was  John  content  with  a  mere 
appeal  to  the  facts  on  which  the  Christian  Church  had 
been  built.  The  facts  themselves  had  had  a  history  ;  they 
had  derived  fresh  momentum  from  the  attestation  of  that 
spiritual  experience  which  faith  in  them  had  again  and 
again  created.  That  is  what  is  meant  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Incarnate  life — twofold  because  it  includes  the 
Cross  no  less  than  the  Baptism — being  supplemented 
by  that  of  the  Spirit,  who,  being  the  Truth,  can  only 
confirm  that  which  is  true.  It  is  noteworthy  that  John's 
apologetic  makes  no  use  of  the  Resurrection.  But,  as 
from  his  Gospel  we  might  almost  expect,  its  place  is 
taken  by  the  Spirit,  whose  presence  in  the  heart  of  be- 


76  ST.    JOHN 


lievers  is  adduced  as  evidence  that  they  are  in  vital 
union  with  the  Christ  from  whom  that  Spirit  has  come 
(iv.  13).  The  historic  Christ,  asset  forth  in  apostolic 
witness,  had  proved  to  those  who  had  trusted  in  Him 
the  power  of  a  new  life,  with  the  result  that  the  objective 
message  had  found  confirmation  in  a  subjective  experi- 
ence. Hence  the  faith  of  the  Church  builds  not  simply 
upon  the  witness  of  men,  but  upon  the  still  greater  wit- 
ness of  God  (v.  9-12).  And  because  attested  fact  is 
thus  reinforced  by  inward  experience,  the  apostle  will 
hold  no  truce  with  Gnostic  speculation.  He  feels  that 
his  own  convictions  must  find  a  sympathetic  echo  in  every 
one  who  "  knoweth  God "  in  such  a  way  as  to  have 
vital  experience  of  Him,  for  to  "  know  "  with  the  whole 
personality  in  the  sense  that,  after  the  Hebrew  idea,  God 
is  appropriated  with  the  affections  and  the  will  as  well 
as  with  the  thought,  was,  in  contrast  to  the  cold  and 
barren  intellectualism  of  the  Gnostics,  John's  conception 
of  a  true  knowledge  of  God.  Of  the  truth  of  his  own 
convictions  the  apostle  is  so  sure  that  he  dares  to  make 
affinity  with  them  the  touchstone  of  truth  and  error, 
just  as  he  is  equally  certain  that  the  welcome  which 
Docetic  antinomianism  found  in  anti-Christian  circles 
branded  its  advocates  as  "  of  the  world."  "  We,"  he 
says  in  bold  contrast,  "  are  of  God ;  he  that  knoweth 
God  heareth  us  ;  he  who  is  not  of  God  heareth  us  not. 
By  this  we  know  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the  spirit  of 
error." 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN  77 

Nor  is  he  less  emphatic  when  from  the  doctrines  of 
these  false  teachers  he  comes  to  consider  their  practice. 
For  these  "  intellectuals  "  set  such  store  by  their  gnosis 
or  "  knowledge  "  as  to  believe  that  its  possession  not 
only  constituted  salvation,  but  rendered  conduct  a 
matter  of  indifference.  The  natural  result  was  that 
error  in  thought  was  attended  with  shameless  laxity  in 
conduct.  How  corrupt  Christianity  must  speedily  have 
become,  if  that  foul  schism  between  belief  and  practice 
had  been  tolerated,  John  was  quick  to  see,  and  he  falls 
upon  it  with  an  unsparing  vigour.  Too  much  was  at 
stake  to  permit  of  smoothness  of  speech.  "If  we  say 
that  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth 
is  not  in  us."  ^'If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned" 
{i.e.  since  our  conversion),  "we  make  God  a  liar,  and 
His  word  is  not  in  us."  "  He  that  saith,  I  know  Him, 
and  keepeth  not  His  commandments,  is  a  liar,  and  the 
truth  is  not  in  him"  (i.  8,  10,  ii.  4).  The  challenge 
in  those  statements  is  direct  and  uncompromising.  John 
flings  it  out  in  such  defiant  assurance,  because  his 
ethical  fervour  has  its  ground  in  what  he  has  found  God 
to  be  in  Christ.  God  is  Light,  and  God  is  Love — those 
are  the  two  great  affirmations  on  which  he  takes  his 
stand.  Light  undimmed  by  the  least  admixture  of  dark- 
ness symbolises  the  absolute  purity  and  righteousness 
which  meet  in  the  perfect  holiness  of  God.  And  if, 
as  is  the  Father,  so  must  also  be  His  children — a  pre- 
miss which  underlies  all  John's  reasoning — Light  in  God 


78  ST.    JOHN 


must,  negatively,  exclude  sin  from  man.  Fellowship 
involved  moral  affinity.  At  present  that  affinity  on  man's 
part  might  be  revealed  in  aspiration  more  than  in 
achievement,  but  its  perfect  realisation  awaited  the 
Christian  in  the  future.  For  when  Christ,  coming  forth 
again  from  the  unseen,  is  manifested,  '*  we,"  says  John, 
*'  shall  be  like  Him ;  for  we  shall  see  Him  even  as  He 
is  "  (iii.  2).  But  even  whilst  the  Return  only  gilded  the 
horizon  as  a  gracious  hope,  Christians  were  to  be  moving 
towards  that  holy  perfection  which  would  then  find  its 
consummation.  "  Every  one  that  hath  this  hope  set  on 
Him  purifieth  himself,  even  as  He"  {i.e.  Christ)  "is 
pure."  Of  great  significance  in  this  context  is  the  stress 
which  John  lays  upon  the  moral  perfection  of  Jesus. 
*' Jesus  Christ  the  righteous,"  "In  Him  is  no  sin," 
— such  is  the  apostle's  picture  of  the  Typal  Man.  For 
though  Paul's  conception  of  Christ  as  the  Second  Adam, 
the  Head  of  a  new,  because  redeemed,  humanity,  is  not 
formally  present  in  this  Epistle,  it  is  there  in  idea. 
Christians  are  described  as  those  who  have  been  "  be- 
gotten of  God,"  with  the  result  that  the  Divine  germ 
within  them  is  bound  to  unfold  in  harmony  with  type, 
and  that  for  man  is  exhibited  in  Christ,  "  the  first-born 
among  many  brethren."  In  what  is  at  first  a  startling 
passage  John  says,  *'  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God 
doeth  no  sin,  because  His  seed  abideth  in  him ;  and  he 
cannot  sin,  because  he  is  begotten  of  God"  (iii.  9). 
And  again,  "  Whosoever  abideth  in  Him  sinneth  not " 


THE    EPISTLES    OF   JOHN         79 

(iii.  6),  a  saying  in  which  we  have  recalled  in  idea, 
though  not  in  terminology,  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
mystical  union  between  the  believer  and  his  Lord.  The 
teaching  of  these  and  similar  passages  presents  difficulty 
until  we  see  that  John  is  construing  Christian  conduct 
in  the  light  of  the  ideal,  and  doing  so  justifiably,  because 
only  he  can  claim  to  be  a  Christian  who  in  effort  and 
aspiration  is  steadily  set  towards  the  achievement  of 
that  ideal.  The  tense  of  the  verb  "  sin  "  in  the  original 
of  the  sayings  quoted  is  significant,  for,  being  present, 
it  denotes  habitual  transgression,  a  life  surrendered  to 
sin.  That  John  does  not  expect  absolute  freedom  from 
sinful  lapse  in  the  saved  man,  is  shown  by  the  provision 
to  which  he  points  for  the  removal  of  such  sins.  He 
writes,  it  is  true,  that  his  readers  may  be  helped  to  avoid 
sin  altogether ;  but,  inasmuch  as  occasional  transgression 
is  sure  to  occur  even  in  the  life  of  the  best,  he  reminds 
them  that  the  Christian,  when  he  sins,  has  the  hope  of 
forgiveness,  inasmuch  as  he  has  in  the  presence  of  the 
Father  an  Advocate  or  Paraclete  who  represents  his 
cause.  Christ,  who  thus  acts  on  behalf  of  sinners, 
whether  they  be  in  the  Church  or  without,  can  do  so 
efficaciously,  because  He  is  a  "propitiation"  for  sin 
i.e.  He,  in  virtue  of  His  infinite  sacrifice,  presents  on 
behalf  of  the  race  a  claim  upon  the  grace  and  clemency 
of  God  (ii.  I,  2).  The  thought  of  Christ  thus  standing 
on  man's  behalf  in  the  presence  of  God  is  curiously  akin 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where 


8o  ST.    JOHN 


Jesus,  as  the  great  High-priest  of  humanity,  having 
passed  with  the  blood  of  His  sacrifice  into  the  heavenly 
sanctuary,  appears  for  us  there  before  God.  Thus  sin 
even  in  the  Christian  may,  on  confession,  be  forgiven, 
and  its  defilement  cleansed  away  (i.  9).  But  though 
occasional  lapse  is  to  be  expected,  patient  tolerance  of 
sin  and  habitual  surrender  to  it  are  anathema  to  John. 
The  man,  he  says  bluntly,  who  claims  to  be  in  fellowship 
with  the  Light,  and  yet  is  at  the  same  time  walking  in 
darkness,  lies,  and  his  life  is  an  acted  falsehood.  Creed 
must  work  itself  out  in  life,  and  spiritual  fellowship  must 
have  its  fruit  in  the  "  walk,"  the  characteristic  move- 
ment of  a  man's  ethical  activities.  *'  He  that  saith  he 
abideth  in  Him  ought  himself  also  to  walk  even  as  He 
walked"  (ii.  6), — by  the  light  of  that  clear  principle 
John  exposes  and  condemns  the  hypocrisy  of  a  libertine 
Gnosticism  masquerading  in  the  garb  of  Christianity. 

But  God  also  was  Love,  and  so  he  who  claimed  to  be 
abiding  in  God  must  prove  that  his  claim  is  true  by 
himself  living  in  the  spirit  of  love.  In  this  truth  John 
emphasises  the  positive  side  of  Christian  duty.  As  one 
who  had  learnt  the  great  lesson  taught  by  Jesus  in  His 
disclosure  of  the  Divine  Fatherhood,  he  declares  love 
to  be  the  very  essence  of  God,  and  the  motive  which 
prompted  the  manifestation  in  time  of  the  Incarnate 
Son.  In  God's  love,  of  which  the  gift  of  Christ  is  made 
the  ultimate  measure,  there  lies  the  originating  cause  of 
man's  love  to  God,     "  We  love,  because  He  first  loved 


THE    EPISTLES    OF   JOHN         8i 

us"  (iv.  19).  And  it  is  not  only  God  we  love,  but  man. 
Towards  God,  indeed,  love  is  to  grow  until  it  is  per- 
fected, so  that  we,  with  all  the  fear  which  clings  to  an 
imperfect  love  cleared  away,  contemplate  with  unshrink- 
ing hearts  the  ordeal  of  judgment.  But  man  is  to  be 
loved  too.  Indeed  John  knows  no  love  of  God  apart 
from  the  love  of  man.  The  test  by  which  we  know 
that  we  have  passed  out  of  death  into  life  is  that  "  we 
love  the  brethren  "  (iii.  14).  Having  been  the  recipients 
of  such  a  love  as  God  has  shown  to  us  in  Christ,  "  we 
ought  also  to  love  one  another"  (iv.  11).  To  see  our 
brother  in  need  and,  whilst  having  the  power  to  help  him, 
to  be  so  uncompassionate  as  to  fail  to  do  so,  is  an  atti- 
tude, says  John,  with  which  any  real  love  to  God  is  in- 
compatible (iii.  17).  If  we  do  not  love  the  brother  whom 
we  see,  we  disprove  thereby  our  love  to  the  God  whom 
we  cannot  see.  "This  commandment  have  we  from 
Him,  that  he  who  loveth  God  love  his  brother  also," 
for  to  love  the  God  who  begat  involves  that  we  love 
also  those  brethren  of  ours  whom  God  has  begotten 
(iv.  21,  V.  i) — thus  does  John  echo  the  teaching  of  his 
Master,  and  reafifirm  the  royal  law  of  love.  But  he 
does  so  with  limitations,  for  here,  as  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  we  have  no  hint  that  the  Christian's  love  of  his 
fellow  is  to  travel  beyond  the  circle  of  the  Christian 
brotherhood.  The  world  hates  the  Christian  (iii.  13), 
and  he,  on  his  part,  is  exhorted  to  "  love  not  the  world, 
neither  the  things  that  are  in  the  world"  (ii.  15).     By 


82  ST.    JOHN 


that  command  John  certainly  means  that  the  Christian's 
love  is  to  be  turned  away  from  the  baubles  of  material 
good  and  the  fleeting  allurements  of  sensual  gratification, 
because,  being  earthly,  they  "perish  where  they  have 
their  birth,"  and  are  no  final  satisfaction  to  an  immortal 
spirit.  It  would,  doubtless,  be  reading  too  much  into 
the  words  to  take  them  as  meaning  that  Christians  were 
not  to  love  human  beings  outside  the  pale  of  the  Church. 
But  if  love  to  such  persons  is  not  forbidden,  neither  is 
it  enjoined.  And  if  the  apostle  is  so  much  less  than 
his  Master  that,  so  far  as  explicit  statement  is  concerned, 
the  Christian's  love  in  its  human  manifestation  does  not, 
in  this  Epistle,  pass  beyond  the  "brother"  and  the 
"  brotherhood,"  we  must  take  John's  repeated  insistence 
upon  the  necessity  of  such  a  love  as  suggesting  that 
something,  possibly  the  bitterness  of  religious  contro- 
versy, had  disturbed  the  loving  unity  of  the  Church, 
whilst  the  implicit  exclusion  of  non-Christians  from  the 
circle  of  love  will  suggest  how  closely  fenced  round  the 
early  Christian  societies  were  with  an  unfriendly  world, 
and  in  what  a  hostile  environment  they  had  to  live. 

One  more  great  term  meets  us  in  this  Epistle,  and 
that  is  Life — the  word,  often  qualified  by  the  epithet 
"  eternal,"  by  which  John  describes  the  state  of  salvation. 
Here  again  this  letter  joins  hands  with  the  Fourth 
Gospel  in  that  "eternal  hfe"  as  the  gift  of  God  is  the 
Christian's  present  possession.  The  figure  doubtless 
appealed   to   John,  partly  because   the   conception  of 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN  83 

religion  as  an  inward  energy  so  fitly  harmonised  with 
those  ethical  interests  which  he  was  concerned  to  defend, 
for,  wherever  life  is,  it  must  yield  appropriate  manifesta- 
tions. Sometimes  the  life  of  the  believer  is  spoken  of  as 
due  to  the  generative  act  of  God,  so  that  Christians  are 
"  begotten  of  God,"  or  are  "  children  of  God,"  the  Greek 
word  which  John  delights  to  use  in  expressing  this  latter 
idea  being  not  that  which,  as  so  often  used  by  Paul, 
connotes  the  status  and  privilege  of  sonship,  but  that 
which  suggests  a  likeness  of  nature  between  father  and 
son.  Salvation,  as  John  regards  it,  is  even  more  than  a 
new  status;  it  is  a  new  nature.  But  in  Christ  is  the 
germ  of  this  new  life,  which  He  so  typifies  and  embodies 
that  sometimes  the  Christian's  possession  of  it  is  at- 
tributed to  the  mystical  appropriation  of  Him.  "  God 
gave  unto  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son. 
He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  the  life ;  he  that  hath  not 
the  Son  of  God  hath  not  the  life"  (v.  11,  12).  How, 
then,  we  may  ask,  does  John  conceive  the  mystical 
union  between  Christ  and  man  to  be  established  and 
the  new  life  begun  ?  The  answer  is — by  "  faith."  The 
principle  that  enables  a  man  to  rise  victorious  over  the 
"world,"  i.e.  over  the  forces  of  evil  as  they  are  contained 
in  himself  and  in  the  organised  antagonism  of  society  to 
goodness,  is  his  "faith"  (v.  4),  which  brings  into  the 
soul  the  begetting  activity  of  God.  As  to  the  content 
of  this  faith  John  hastens  to  tell  us  in  the  next  verse 
that  it  consists  in  believing  "  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of 


84  ST.    JOHN 


God."  We  are  tempted  at  first  to  stumble  at  that  de- 
finition, because  it  seems  to  make  orthodoxy  the  con- 
dition of  salvation.  But  so  to  narrow  John's  thought 
is  to  degrade  and  pervert  it.  To  him  the  supreme  value 
of  the  title  "Son  of  God,"  as  applied  to  Jesus,  is  the 
meaning  and  authority  which  it  gives  to  His  whole 
witness  to  God.  If  Christ  is  **  the  Son,"  then  in  Him 
there  stands  disclosed  after  an  ideal  and  final  form  the 
nature,  grace,  and  will  of  the  Father.  To  believe,  there- 
fore, in  His  Sonship  is  to  trust  His  witness,  and  to 
consent,  with  the  will  as  well  as  with  the  mind,  to  all  the 
obligations  of  love  and  obedience  to  which  His  witness 
commits  us.  Hence  faith,  thus  understood,  instead  of 
being  the  exhibition  of  a  cold  orthodoxy,  is  really  the 
upspringing  Godwards  of  that  warm  and  fruitful  devotion 
which  always  rises  in  the  soul,  when  in  the  face  of  the 
Son  a  man  beholds  the  vision  of  the  Father,  and,  seeing 
Christ,  knows  and  loves  God. 

Such  is  in  substance  the  teaching  of  this  First  Epistle. 

The  Second  and  Third  Epistles  demand  but  brief 
discussion,  though  from  certain  points  of  view  they  are 
extremely  interesting  documents.  They  are  both  written 
by  one  person,  who  styles  himself  **the  elder,"  a 
designation  which  has  led  some  critics  to  identify  him 
with  John  the  Presbyter  of  tradition,  and  to  argue,  on 
the  ground  of  thought  and  style,  that  if  he  wrote  these 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN         85 

two  Epistles,  it  is  to  him  also,  and  not  to  the  apostle 
John,  that  we  must  attribute  the  First  Epistle  and  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  But  "  elder"  here,  instead  of  denoting  an 
office,  may  simply  be  a  mark  of  age,  as  it  seems  to  be 
in  I  Pet.  V.  I,  where,  if  office  be  also  contemplated,  such 
a  position  is  intended  as  evidently  was  not  incompatible 
with  its  holder  being  also  an  apostle.  It  is  not  impos- 
sible, therefore,  that  these  two  letters  were  written  by 
the  apostle  John.  What  is  evident  is  that  their  writer 
stood  in  a  relation  of  authority  to  a  group  of  churches, 
one  of  which  is  addressed  in  the  Second  Epistle.  For 
though  that  letter  is  apparently  sent  to  an  individual, 
"the  elect  lady"  named  in  ver.  i,  there  are  critical  con- 
siderations, derived  from  the  Epistle  itself,  which  have 
led  many  scholars  to  conclude  that  by  that  cryptic  mode 
of  address  some  Christian  community  is  meant — perhaps, 
as  Findlay  suggests,  the  church  at  Pergamum.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  when  John  has  got  far  enough  away 
from  his  opening  greeting  to  forget  the  "  thou  "  "  thy  " 
and  "  thee "  to  which  it  committed  him,  he  resorts  at 
ver.  6  to  the  plural  **ye,"  and  never  recovers  himself 
again  till  he  comes  to  the  formal  salutation  at  the  close. 
But,  waiving  further  discussion  of  that  point,  what  seems 
possible  is  that  certain  brethren,  going  forth  from  Ephesus 
with  John's  approval  to  break  up  new  ground  by 
preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,  are  entrusted  with 


86  ST.    JOHN 


a  brief  pastoral  to  some  church,  into  the  neighbourhood 
of  which  their  evangelistic  tour  is  likely  to  bring  them. 
About  the  church  in  question  John  had  reasons  for 
anxiety.  It,  like  all  the  churches  in  Asia,  was  threatened 
with  perversion  of  doctrine  and  conduct  through  the 
activity  of  vagrant  preachers  of  those  heresies  denounced 
in  the  First  Epistle.  The  apostle  was  sure  that  the 
bulk  of  this  church  was  sound,  but  his  qualified' expres- 
sion, "I  have  found  certain  of  thy  children  walking  in 
truth,"  shows  that  he  had  not  a  like  confidence  con- 
cerning the  whole.  And  so  he  reminds  them  of  the  old 
landmarks  of  faith,  and  calls  them  to  Christian  obedience 
and  love.  He  sees  the  grave  peril  of  all  past  achieve- 
ment being  undone  (either  his  own  or  theirs,  according 
to  the  reading  we  adopt  in  ver.  8),  and  the  complete 
fruition  of  all  their  endeavours  frustrated.  "Look  to 
yourselves  "  he  cries  in  a  warning  which  has  in  it  the 
note  of  urgency.  No  doubt  Gnostic  error  had  appealed 
to  some  minds  because  it  masqueraded  in  the  guise  of 
progress  ;  it  posed  as  "  advanced  ''  thought.  But  John, 
probably  borrowing  the  very  terms  in  which  this  claim 
had  been  made,  declares  that  whosoever  "  advanceth  " 
in  a  way  that  means  cutting  himself  loose  from  the 
historic  Christ,  loses  thereby  his  hold  upon  religion  and 
God.  The  sort  of  progress  which  John  understood  was 
that  which,  as  he   tells  us  in  his  First  Epistle  (ii.  8), 


THE    EPISTLES    OF    JOHN         87 

meant  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  revelation  already 
given,  so  that  an  old  commandment  seemed  new  when, 
as  the  twilight  of  comprehension  passed  into  the  full 
shining  of  the  day,  the  old  truth  was  seen  to  possess 
larger  meaning.  But  that  is  progress  in  truth  as  distinct 
from  progress  out  of  it,  and  since  the  "advanced" 
thought  against  which  John  inveighs  seemed  to  him  to 
belong  to  the  latter  type,  he  sternly  forbids  this  church 
to  give  the  least  welcome  or  toleration  to  its  evangelists, 
warning  any  Christians  who  might  infringe  this  prohibi- 
tion, that  thereby  they  would  share  responsibility  for 
all  the  evil  which  might  ensue.  It  is  easy  to  see,  as 
some  do,  the  uncharitableness  of  a  fanatic  in  this 
command  to  boycott  the  false  teachers,  but  John's 
intolerance  will  seem  pardonable  to  those  who  realise 
how  subversive  of  both  truth  and  morals  was  the  heresy 
against  which  he  fought. 

The  Third  Epistle  is  undoubtedly  personal  in  character, 
for  it  is  addressed  to  Gains,  a  Christian  loyal  to  truth 
and  apostolic  authority,  and  eminent  in  the  church  to 
which  he  belonged.  In  it,  however,  there  was  a  dis- 
loyal faction  led  by  one  Diotrephes,  who  probably  was 
the  local  bishop.  He  seems  in  any  case  to  have  been 
fond  of  self-assertion,  and  ambitious  for  place  and 
power.  To  the  church  over  which  he  presided  John 
had  written  a  letter,  probably  the  one  which  we  now 


88  ST.    JOHN 


know  as  the  Second  Epistle,  but  Diotrephes  had  made  its 
arrival  the  occasion  of  an  impertinent  tirade  against  the 
apostle.  Moreover,  as  regards  the  touring  evangelists 
who  brought  it,  he  had  not  only,  simply  because  they 
came  from  John,  failed  to  give  them,  ere  they  resumed 
their  journey,  the  temporary  hospitality,  the  furnishing 
of  which  fell  most  naturally  to  him  as  the  recognised 
head  of  the  local  church,  but  he  had  refused  to  let 
any  one  else  supply  it.  Indeed  he  carried  matters  with 
such  a  high  hand  as  to  proceed  to  expel  from  the  church 
those  who  were  disposed  to  give  the  itinerant  preachers 
welcome.  No  excuse  for  this  existed  in  the  evangelists 
themselves.  Demetrius,  who  was  their  leader,  is  referred 
to  as  a  man  respected  by  all,  including  John  himself, 
and  the  apostle  expresses  his  gratification  that  Gains 
had  extended  to  the  itinerants  the  hospitality  which 
Diotrephes  had  withheld.  Gaius  seems  to  have  been 
the  leader  of  the  loyal  party  in  the  church — "the 
friends  "  (ver.  14),  as  John  in  an  arresting  phrase  de- 
scribes them,  sending  to  them  a  greeting  from  a 
similar  group  in  his  own  church  at  Ephesus.  This 
little  letter  is  most  interesting,  not  only  because  of  the 
style  in  which  it  is  composed,  but  because  of  the  light 
which  it  sheds  upon  the  inner  life  of  an  early  church. 
Harnack  has  probably  rightly  diagnosed  the  situation 
when  he  says  that  this  Epistle  belongs  to  the  time  at 
which    the    monarchical    system    of    church    govern- 


THE    EPISTLES    OF   JOHN         89 

ment,  by  which  an  apostle  or  elder  held  authority 
over  a  group  of  churches,  was  breaking  down  through 
the  growing  eagerness  of  local  churches,  doubtless 
prompted  sometimes,  as  in  this  case,  by  some  ambitious 
men  within  them,  to  possess  freedom  from  external 
control,  and  to  enjoy  self-government  through  their  own 
local  officers.  The  issue  was  ecclesiastical  rather  than 
doctrinal,  and  calls  for  no  further  comment 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   BOOK   OF   THE   REVELATION 

Dr.  South  is  credited  with  a  saying  concerning  this 
Book  to  the  effect  that  it  "  either  found  a  man  mad  or 
left  him  so."  Certainly,  with  the  exception  of  a  few 
chapters  which  have  always  been  precious  to  devout 
readers,  the  Apocalypse,  with  its  swift  dramatic  transi- 
tions, and  its  imagery  of  beasts  and  dragons  and  other 
bizarre  figures,  has  been  a  sore  perplexity  to  sober  Bible 
students,  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  proved  a 
veritable  treasure-mine  to  those  who  have  a  weakness 
for  fantastic  modes  of  interpretation.  The  Pope  of 
Rome,  Luther,  Napoleon,  have  all,  according  to  one  or 
another  exegete  of  this  latter  school,  been  pre-figured 
in  this  Book.  Happily  the  scholarship  of  the  last 
generation  has  given  us  release  from  these  vagaries, 
and  though  it  would  be  too  much  to  say  that  all  the 
problems  of  the  Apocalypse  are  solved,  we  are  much 
nearer  to  an  intelligent  grasp  of  both  its  nature  and 

its   message    than   we   were.      One    thing    which   has 

90 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     91 

induced  this  happy  result  is  that  this  Book  has  been 
linked  up  with  other  literature  of  the  same  type.  It 
is  a  type  peculiar  to  the  Jew,  and  though,  apart  from 
stray  sections  in  the  Gospels,  this  is  the  only  specimen 
of  it  in  the  New  Testament,  it  claims  the  Book  of  Daniel 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  portions  of  the  Books 
of  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Zechariah,  and  Joel,  whilst  in  the 
extra-canonical  literature  it  is  represented  by  such  writ- 
ings, among  others,  as  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the 
Assumption  of  Moses.  It  was  a  peculiar  product  of 
the  three  centuries  which  began  with  165  B.C.  Its 
great  characteristics  are  the  resort  to  vision  as  the  pro- 
fessed mode — it  was  not  necessarily  more — by  which 
the  message  uttered  was  obtained,  and  the  use  of  a 
fantastic  symbolism.  On  this  account  it  has  been  held 
that  apocalypse  represents  the  decadent  stage  of  pro- 
phecy, and  to  some  extent  it  may  be  true  that  the  vision- 
form  of  expression  implies  an  obscuration  of  that 
clearness  of  perception  which  we  find  in  the  prophets. 
But  other  explanations  are  much  nearer  the  truth.  A 
"revelation"  in  this  special  sense,  or  its  equivalent 
"apocalypse,"  means  literally  an  "unveiling,"  and  it  seems 
at  first  a  curious  name  for  a  book  which,  as  we  read  it, 
appears  to  "darken  counsel "  rather  than  to  illumine  it. 
But  that  is  because  we  have  failed  to  put  ourselves 
at  the  proper  point  of  view.  An  apocalypse,  most 
happily   described   as   "a   tract   for   bad   times,"    was 


92  ST.    JOHN 


written  for  a  crisis  in  which  the  cause  of  right,  owing  to 
the  weakness  of  its  human  adherents  in  face  of  the 
overwhelming  might  and  pressure  of  their  opponents, 
was  in  an  abject  and  parlous  state.  So  dire  was  the 
extremity  that  the  only  hope  of  the  triumph  of  good- 
ness lay  in  a  speedy  and  dramatic  intervention  of  God 
Himself,  and  hence  the  deus  ex  niachind^  an  abnormal 
and  effectual  interposition  of  God,  is  an  essential  feature 
of  an  apocalypse.  The  assurance  of  such  an  interven- 
tion was  likely  to  hearten  those  loyal  souls  who,  seeing 
all  too  plainly  the  overwhelming  odds  against  them, 
needed,  if  they  were  not  to  waver  and  fall,  that  convic- 
tion of  the  Divine  reinforcement  of  their  cause,  which 
some  seer  in  their  midst  was  inspired  first  to  see,  and 
then  in  symbolic  form  to  disclose.  That  form  was  in 
part  a  necessity  of  the  situation.  The  seer  had  things 
to  say  which  it  was  dangerous  to  put  into  plain  speech 
— John,  e.g,^  dared  not  have  said  without  disguise  some 
of  the  truths  which  he  wished  the  Book  of  the  Revela- 
tion to  convey — and  so  he  resorted  to  symbolic  expres- 
sion, choosing,  moreover,  images  drawn  from  the 
fantastic  and  the  unreal,  so  that  not  only  would  a 
hostile  reader,  chancing  upon  the  book,  unsuspectingly 
dismiss  it  as  a  farrago  of  nonsense  or  a  grotesque  fairy- 
tale, but  the  reader  contemplated  by  the  seer  would 
through  the  very  grotesqueness  of  the  imagery  conclude 
that  it  veiled  an  ulterior  meaning. 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     93 

Such,  then,  was  the  type  of  literature  to  which  the 
Book  of  the  Revelation  belongs.  One  conclusion  which 
immediately  flows  from  the  foregoing  considerations  is 
that,  instead  of  having  reference  to  remote  personages 
like  Luther  or  Napoleon,  it  was  a  message  for  the  hour 
and  for  a  crisis  then  impending.  The  Book  itself  aids 
us  to  reconstruct  the  situation.  It  was  written  to  seven 
Christian  churches  in  Asia  which  had  to  sustain  a 
malign  pressure  common,  indeed,  to  Christians  through- 
out the  whole  Roman  world,  but  existing  in  provincial 
Asia  to  an  aggravated  degree.  The  evil  was  nothing 
less  than  the  demand  Rome  was  now  making  on  all  her 
subjects  that  they  should  worship  the  emperors,  the 
living  as  well  as  the  dead.  It  is  Caesrrism  with  its 
claim  to  Divine  worship  which  is  symbolised  by  the 
beast  with  the  seven  heads  bearing  "names  of  blas- 
phemy" (xiii.  i).  Christians,  under  the  stress  of  a 
changed  situation,  were  being  forced  to  reconsider  their 
attitude  to  the  imperial  power.  The  time  had  been 
when  Rome  was  in  the  main  their  friend,  standing 
between  them  and  the  envenomed  antagonism  of  the 
Jev/s.  The  result  was  that  writers  like  Paul  and  Peter 
had  counselled  loyalty  to  the  existing  regime  as  to  powers 
that  were  ordained  of  God.  But  a  change  became 
necessary  when  Rome  itself  in  the  person  of  Nero  turned 
persecutor,  shedding  the  blood  of  outstanding  leaders 
such  as  Peter  and  Paul,  ?.nd  when  subsequently,  as  a 


94  ST.    JOHN 


test  of  loyalty,  she  imposed  a  Caesar- worship  which  was 
abhorrent  to  every  one  of  her  Christian  subjects.  It 
would  appear  that  in  Asia,  as  compared  with  some 
provinces,  the  cult  of  the  emperor  was  more  elaborately 
organised,  a  regular  priesthood  (the  second  *' beast"  of 
xiii.  II  and  "the  false  prophet"  of  xvi.  13)  being  asso- 
ciated with  it.  Hence  Rome,  seated  on  her  seven  hills, 
whether  typified  by  "  the  beast,"  a  fit  embodiment  of  brute 
force  and  recalling  Csesarism  as  an  object  of  worship,  or 
symbolised  by  "  the  great  harlot  sitting  by  many  waters  " 
(the  imperial  authority  being  there  in  mind),  who  made 
potentates  and  peoples  through  a  compulsory  idolatry 
commit  spiritual  fornication  (xvii.  i),  is  the  foe  with 
which  in  this  Book  the  Church  finds  herself  in  mortal 
conflict.  To  have  grasped  that  fact,  and  to  realise  that 
the  Apocalypse  was  written  to  encourage  Christians  in 
unwavering  loyalty  to  their  faith  by  an  assurance  of 
their  ultimate  triumph,  is  to  possess  the  key  which 
unlocks  the  mystery. 

The  Book  of  the  Revelation  is,  therefore,  not  prose 
but  poetry,  in  the  sense  at  least  that  it  is  a  work  of  in- 
spired imagination  expressing  in  symbol  and  drama  what, 
as  its  author  felt,  was  the  Divine  judgment  on  the  exist- 
ing situation.  One  thing  which  scholarship  has  made 
plain  is  that  the  writer  is  not  wholly  original.  He  has 
used  over  again  imagery  which  we  find  in  Ezekiel, 
Zechariah,  and  other   writers   of  apocalypse.     Indeed 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     95 

Gunkel,  in  a  most  important  piece  of  criticism,  went 
further,  and  treated  this  Book  as  a  mass  of  symbolism 
having  to  a  great  extent  its  origin  in  Babylonian  myths 
and  folk-lore.  But  he  is  open  to  the  objection  that, 
should  his  theory  of  the  primal  source  be  correct,  and 
apply  as  extensively  as  he  imagines,  the  source  of 
imagery  is  one  thing,  the  meaning  with  which  a  Chris- 
tian, or  even  a  Jewish,  writer  chooses  to  employ  it  may 
be  another.  Moreover,  for  some  of  the  symbolism,  e.g. 
the  seal-openings,  the  woman  with  child,  the  outpouring 
of  the  bowls,  neither  Babylonia  nor  the  Old  Testament 
supplies  any  credible  parallels.  They  are  Christian 
symbols,  and  the  work  of  an  imagination  which,  while 
not  disdaining  to  borrow  imagery  from  existing  sources, 
had  power  to  create  its  own,  and  to  set  the  whole,  both 
the  original  and  the  derived,  to  Christian  use.  In 
addition  it  is  probably  true  that  John  has  taken  over 
pieces  of  existing  apocalyptic  which  lay  ready  to  his 
hand,  and  has  with  slight  modifications  inserted  them 
in  his  work.  Critics  are  not  all  agreed  as  to  where  we 
must  find  these  insertions,  but  one  place  is  probably 
chap,  xi.,  where  in  ver.  2  the  writer  seems  to  expect  that 
in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  viewed  then  as  im- 
pending, the  Temple  was  to  suffer  no  injury  beyond  the 
capture  and  profanation  of  its  outer  court — an  expecta- 
tion which  must  be  dated  prior  to  a.d.  70.  Chaps,  xvii. 
and  xviii.  also  appear  to  some  critics  to  present  a  double 


96  ST.    JOHN 


picture  of  Rome's  downfall.  In  some  passages  it  seems 
attributed  to  luxury  and  to  the  corruption  with  which 
Rome  had  tainted  mankind ;  in  others  it  is  because  of 
her  persecution  of  the  saints  with  whose  blood  she  has 
become  drunk.  But  to  the  present  writer,  if  the  "  forni- 
cation "  charged  against  Rome  be,  as  the  Old  Testament 
would  suggest,  interpreted  primarily  in  the  sense  of  the 
idolatrous  Caesar- worship  which  Rome  imposed  upon  the 
races  under  her  sway,  the  two  pictures  present  no  neces- 
sary discrepancy.  The  general  contention,  however, 
that  John  has  utilised  brief  existing  apocalypses  may  be 
conceded,  difficult  as  critics  find  it  to  agree  as  to  the 
precise  sections  of  this  Book  which  may  thus  be 
accounted  for,  though  the  eating  of  the  little  book  re- 
counted in  X.  lo  suggests  that  borrowing  from  a  previous 
source  is  to  be  looked  for  in  what  immediately  follows. 
On  this  theory  we  may  account  for  the  presence  here 
and  there,  e.g.  in  xii.  15,  16,  of  fragments  of  imagery 
which,  though  possessing  some  relevance  to  the  situa- 
tion for  which  they  were  originally  written,  seem  to 
yield  no  satisfactory  meaning  in  the  crisis  for  which 
John  writes.  Still,  these  are  exceptions.  Composite  as 
were  its  sources,  this  Book  represents  the  fusion  of  them 
into  a  unity  which  bears  a  Christian  imprint,  and  is  in- 
tended to  express  a  Christian  message.  This  does  not 
involve,  however,  that  we  must  discover  a  meaning  in 
every  detail  of  the  imagery.     There  are  undoubtedly,  as 


BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION     97 

in  our  Lord's  parables,  minor  features  which  are  only- 
intended  to  give  colouring  to  the  picture,  or  add  vivid- 
ness to  the  movement,  and  which  belong  to  the  art  of 
the  seer  rather  than  to  the  substance  of  his  message. 

Earlier  as  some  portions  of  the  Apocalypse  have  been 
seen  to  be,  its  composition  and  issue  in  its  present  form 
must,  in  the  judgment  of  most  critics,  be  assigned  to 
the  last  decade  of  the  first  century,  not  only  because  the 
persecution  under  Domitian,  the  then  reigning  emperor, 
seems  to  fit  the  circumstances  which  called  forth  the 
Book,  but  because  Nero,  instead  of  being  thought  of  as 
still  alive  and  in  hiding  in  Parthia — a  form  which  the 
myth  concerning  his  return  took  for  some  time  after 
his  death, — is  pictured  as  being  brought  back  from 
hell,  a  view  which  cannot  be  traced  till  towards  the 
end  of  the  first  century.  More  plainly  than  any 
other  of  the  Johannine  writings  the  Apocalypse  claims 
to  be  written  by  John,  and  hence  to  many  the  only 
point  to  be  determined  is  whether  we  are  to  identify 
the  author  with  John  the  Apostle,  or  with  that  nebulous 
figure,  John  the  Presbyter.  But  is  not  a  further  conclu- 
sion possible  ?  The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Johannine 
Epistles  exhibit  a  marked  unity  in  thought,  style,  and 
language,  and  may  easily  have  come  from  one  hand. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  same  hand  wrote  the 
Apocalypse.  Phrases  and  terms,  it  is  true,  occur  which 
recall   the   Johannine   terminology,  but  others  equally 


98  ST.    JOHN 


characteristic  are  absent,  and  such  sporadic  affinities  as 
exist  are  sufficiently  explained,  if  traced,  not  to  John 
himself,  but  to  a  disciple  who  had  sat  at  his  feet.  For 
the  supreme  difficulty  which  seems  to  demand  that  solu- 
tion is  that,  whereas  the  Greek  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
Epistles,  whilst  simple,  is  grammatical  and  idiomatic, 
that  of  the  Apocalypse  is  full  of  harsh  constructions, 
false  concords  of  gender  and  case,  and  imitations  of 
Hebrew  structure,  so  that  the  style  has  been  not  unfit- 
tingly described  as  "  the  broken  Greek  of  a  foreigner " 
who  knew  but  imperfectly  the  language  in  which  he  was 
writing.  That  consideration,  if  no  other,  makes  it  prob- 
able that  the  writer  of  this  Book  was  different  from 
the  author  of  the  other  Johannine  literature.  And  if  we 
assign  the  latter  to  John  the  Apostle, — and  it  can  at  least 
be  said  that  the  theory  has  not  been  clearly  disproved, — 
the  Book  of  the  Revelation,  even  though  it  purports  to 
come  from  John,  may  be  due  to  some  other  hand.  For 
one  feature  of  apocalyptic  literature  is  that  it  is  generally 
pseudonymous,  i.e,  the  real  writer  hides  himself  behind 
the  name  of  some  famous  man  belonging  to  the  past, 
and  sometimes  to  the  near  past.  Of  this  pseudonymity 
the  Books  of  Daniel  and  Enoch  are  familiar  examples. 
Because  this  was  a  Christian  apocalypse,  the  name  of 
some  Christian  leader  had  to  be  borrowed,  and  that  of 
John  was  chosen  (he  may  have  died  only  a  little  while 
before),  not  only  because   of  the  influence  which  his 


BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION     99 

name  would  carry  among  the  churches  addressed,  but 
because  the  actual  writer  may  have  felt,  as  the  result  of 
actual  fellowship  with  John  during  his  lifetime,  that 
he  was  uttering  the  convictions  of  his  beloved  master. 
On  this  question,  the  discussion  of  which  is  here  neces- 
sarily brief,  dogmatic  assertions  are  to  be  deprecated, 
but  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  solution  suggested  is  not 
unworthy  of  credence. 

Whoever  was  the  "John"  of  the  Apocalypse,  it  is 
evident  that  he  has  a  lofty  conception  of  the  Person  of 
Clirist,  for  the  majestic  being,  of  whom  he  speaks  in 
ch.  i.,  alive  from  the  dead,  bearing  at  His  girdle  the  keys 
of  death  and  Hades,  and  walking  with  transfigured  mien 
amid  the  Asian  churches,  represents  One  whose  only 
rank  is  Divine.  The  seven  churches,  to  whom  this  Book 
was  addressed,  receive  each  a  specific  message,  mostly 
of  praise  commingled  with  blame.  For  there  is  thus 
disclosed  one  grave  feature  of  the  historic  situation, 
namely,  that  these  Asian  Christians  were  ill  prepared  to 
meet  the  impending  crisis.  The  love  of  some  had  grown 
cold  ;  worldliness  had  infected  others  ;  at  Thyatira  what 
seems  to  have  been  Gnostic  libertinism,  with  its  specious 
initiation  into  "  the  deep  things  of  Satan,"  menaced  the 
purity  of  the  church ;  other  Christians,  e.g.  those  at 
Pergamum,  "where  Satan's  throne  is'*  (ii.  13),  felt  with 
special  intensity  the  pressure  of  the  dominant  Caesar- 
worship  and  the  vicious  seductions  of  paganism.      So 


loo  ST.   JOHN 


the  general  call,  linked  with  the  promise  of  fitting  reward, 
was  that  these  churches  should  recover,  or  retain,  holiness 
of  life,  fervour  of  love,  and  purity  of  faith.  Only  a 
Church  thus  armed  could  stand  against  the  onset  of  a 
persecuting  world. 

These  prefatory  messages  concluded,  the  drama  of 
deliverance  and  judgment  begins  to  unfold.  A  door  is 
opened  in  heaven,  and  mystic  voices  are  heard,  and  the 
seer  "  in  the  Spirit "  beholds  wonderful  things  (iv.  i,  2). 
Since  John's  aim  in  this  Book  is  to  kindle  hope  within  the 
Church  by  reminding  her  of  the  unseen  and  heavenly 
reinforcements  which,  contending  on  her  behalf,  would 
in  the  time  of  crisis  ensure  preservation  and  triumph, 
he  naturally  begins  with  an  august  picture  of  the  great- 
ness and  all-pervasive  sovereignty  of  God.  Seated  on 
a  glorious  throne,  and  with  the  seven  spirits  and  the 
four  cherubim  before  Him  who  typify  the  perfect  forth- 
going  of  the  Divine  energy,  the  Almighty  receives,  as 
symbolically  presented  by  the  living  creatures  and  elders, 
the  adoring  homage  of  the  universe.  It  is  the  picture 
of  a  God  whose  writs  run  everywhere,  and  whose 
power,  universally  acknowledged,  is  competent  to  effect 
the  decisions  of  His  will.  Thus  is  the  mind  of  the 
reader  prepared  for  the  drama  of  destiny  which  follows. 
The  Lamb,  identified  by  means  of  other  titles  with  the 
Jesus  of  history,  receives  also,  as  was  fitting  for  One 
who  was  to  be  God's  agent  in  the  accomplishment  of 


BOOK     OF    THE    REVELATION     loi 

judgment,  the  acclamation  and  homage  of  the  heavenly 
court,  His  present  dignity  and  lordship  being  traced,  as 
the  very  title  "  Lamb  "  was  intended  to  suggest,  to  His 
redemptive  sacrifice  for  man.  Christ  too  is  competent 
for  His  new  task,  and  able  to  break  the  seals  of  the 
book  of  doom.  And  as  each  of  the  seven  seals  is 
broken, — the  number  seven  probably  denoting  judgment 
perfected, — some  phase  of  the  Divine  action  is  manifested, 
and  we  see  how  God  is  able  to  bring  His  chastisements 
to  pass,  and  usher  in  the  Day  of  Judgment.  Conquest, 
slaughter,  famine,  and  pestilence — these,  depicted  by 
horses  of  various  hue,  are  declared  instruments  of  the 
Divine  vengeance.  When  these  have  passed,  the  opening 
of  the  fifth  seal  discloses  the  motive  God  has  for 
vengeance  in  the  appeal  constantly  made  to  Him  by  the 
blood  of  His  martyred  servants.  If  He  delayed  avenging 
them,  it  was  only  because  He  was  waiting  until  their 
number  was  complete,  and  the  cup  of  their  persecutors 
full  to  the  brim.  With  the  sixth  seal  the  hour  is  ripe, 
for,  when  that  seal  is  broken,  the  Day  of  Yahweh,  with 
the  dread  accompaniments  long  associated  with  it  in  pro- 
phecy, is  ushered  in,  and  the  final  assize,  of  which  the 
preceding  visitations  had  been  but  premonitory,  begins. 
At  this  point  (ch.  vii.),  and  as  a  counterfoil  to  the 
terror  of  the  foes  of  the  Church,  when  faced  with  the 
avenging  wrath  of  God,  we  have  a  picture  of  the  security 
with  which  Christians,  conceived  poetically  as  the  true 


I02  ST.   JOHN 


Israel,  pass  unscathed  through  all  the  foregoing  horrors. 
John  has  a  vision  of  a  redeemed  host,  representative  of 
many  tongues  and  tribes,  constituted  by  those  who 
"  come  out  of  the  great  tribulation,"  i.e.  the  persecution 
which  to  the  seer  was  even  then  in  progress.  Standing 
before  the  throne,  they  praise  God  for  the  achievement 
of  His  Messianic  salvation,  and,  with  a  happiness  which 
no  distress  or  sorrow  is  permitted  to  disturb,  they  find 
the  consummation  of  their  bliss  in  the  vision  and  service 
of  God.  Thus  are  the  antagonisms  of  earth  carried  up  to 
their  final  issue.  It  might  have  seemed  enough  if  the 
Apocalypse  had  ended  here,  but  it  belongs  to  the  art  of 
the  writer  that  he  seeks  to  make  his  moral  effective  by 
giving  more  than  one  demonstration  of  it.  Hence  the 
breaking  of  the  seventh  seal  occasions  no  new  action, 
but  heralds  a  silence  in  heaven — a  silence  of  awe-struck 
expectation — preparatory  to  a  new  presentation  of  the 
drama  of  judgment.  Seven  trumpets  replace  the  seven 
seals,  and,  as  they  are  each  blown  in  succession,  there 
are  let  loose  upon  the  earth  various  forms  of  destruction, 
nature  and  animals,  as  well  as  mankind,  receiving  the 
strokes  of  doom.  The  destructive  agencies  are  in  part 
suggested  by  the  Old  Testament  stories  of  the  plagues 
of  Egypt  and  of  the  visitation  of  the  locust-swarm  in 
Joel,  though  the  woe  heralded  by  the  sixth  trumpet  is 
probably  a  concerted  attack  upon  Rome  by  the  barbaric 
nations   of  the   East.     That  the  Parthians,   dominant 


BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION     103 

among  these  races,  were  to  be  the  instrument  of  God's 
vengeance  upon  the  Roman  power  is  a  theme  to  which 
John  returns.  Meanwhile,  after  the  sixth  trumpet,  as 
after  the  sixth  seal,  he  is  diverted  by  the  desire  to 
introduce  an  episode  (xi.  1-13),  borrowed,  as  we  have 
seen,  from  some  earlier  writer,  but  congruous  in  spirit 
and,  to  some  extent,  in  form  with  the  preceding  woes. 
Its  insertion  paves  the  way  for  the  sounding  of  the 
seventh  trumpet,  with  which  "  is  finished  the  mystery 
of  God  "  (x.  7),  and  the  programme  of  judgment  moves 
to  its  climax.  "  Great  voices  "  in  heaven  announce  the 
subjugation  of  the  cosmos  to  its  rightful  Lord,  and 
acclaim  the  Messiah  as  He  enters  upon  His  eternal 
reign. 

Here,  again,  we  might  expect  the  Book  to  draw  to  its 
close  upon  this  anthem  of  victory,  yet  to  our  surprise 
we  are  at  once  borne  back  again  to  the  conflict,  and 
find  that  it  is  still  in  progress.  The  reason  must  be 
that,  although  John  has  already  conducted  his  readers 
through  two  cycles  of  judgment  to  the  Divine  victory 
over  wrong,  he  has  not  yet  brought  his  message  into  as 
vivid  touch  with  the  historic  situation  as  he  desires. 
Apart  from  a  vague  reference  to  invasion  from  the  East, 
the  instruments  of  God's  vengeance  upon  Rome  have 
been  elementally  pictured  as  war,  pestilence,  famine, 
and  various  scourges  of  nature.  Now  he  comes  closer 
to  the  scene,  and  at  the  same  time  widens  the  lists,  so 


104  ST.    JOHN 


that  we  see  who,  in  his  judgment,  are  the  real  combatants, 
and  what  are  the  final  issues.  Christians  are  reminded 
that  the  foes  of  the  Church  are  the  foes  of  God,  and 
that  their  battle  against  the  persecuting  might  of  Rome 
is  but  an  acute  and  final  phase  of  the  age-long  conflict 
between  God  and  the  powers  of  evil.  The  order  in 
chap.  xii.  is  a  little  confusing,  because  the  story  of  the 
dragon's  persecution  of  the  woman  and  her  child  is 
partly  told  before  we  learn  how  the  creature  came  to 
be  on  earth.  But  if  we  correct  the  sequence,  what  we 
see  is  that  the  present  conflict  of  Right  with  Wrong 
is  only  the  perpetuation  for  a  space  on  earth  of  the 
struggle  which  began  with  that  war  in  heaven,  in  which 
Michael  with  his  angels  subdued  Satan  and  his  allies. 
Cast  forth  from  heaven,  Satan  now  has  his  sphere  of 
malignity  in  this  lower  world,  and,  as  the  symbolism  of 
xii.  3  shows,  is  regarded  by  John  as  finding  his  agent 
in  the  Caesars  of  Rome.  The  object  of  attack  is 
the  Messiah,  symbolically  depicted  as  the  offspring  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  though,  by  a  transition  of  thought  easy 
to  a  Jewish  Christian,  the  "  woman "  comes  also  to 
express  the  Christian  Church  viewed  as  the  new  Israel, 
the  historic  continuation  of  the  old,  and  Christians  are 
"the  rest  of  her  seed  "  (xii.  17).  Detail  more  obviously 
applicable  to  the  immediate  situation  is  furnished  in 
chap,  xiii.,  where  two  beasts  appear.  One  having  ten 
horns  and  seven  heads,  the  latter  bearing  blasphemous 


BOOK    OF    THE    REVELATION     105 

titles,  represents  the  dynasty  of  the  Caesars,  with  whom, 
through  their  impious  claim  to  Divine  worship,  the 
Church  was  at  issue,  as  also  with  another  "beast," 
lamb-like  in  appearance  but  dragon-like  in  action,  and 
typifying  the  priestly  orders  in  the  empire  who  lent 
themselves  in  various  ways  to  the  spread  of  the  imperial 
cult.  The  first  beast,  however,  stands  for  an  individual 
as  well  as  a  dynasty,  for  it  was  felt  that  the  anti- 
Christian  venom  of  the  Caesarian  line  had  come  to  a 
head  in  Nero.  His  death,  when  it  took  place  amid  uni- 
versal execration  in  a.d.  68,  was  believed  by  many  to  be 
a  mere  ruse,  and  his  return  from  some  place  of  hiding 
was  hourly  expected.  Nero,  consequently,  is  that  head 
of  the  dragon  which  seemingly  had  been  smitten  unto 
death,  but  whose  death-stroke  was  healed  (xiii.  3),  and 
he  it  is,  regarded  as  once  more  possessed  of  the  imperial 
power,  who  is  foreshadowed  in  the  mystic  number  666 
(ver.  18).  Such  were  the  foes  of  the  Church  in  the 
impending  crisis. 

And  what  about  her  friends  and  helpers  ?  For  answer 
John  takes  us  to  the  unseen  and  heavenly  side  of  things, 
and  we  see  the  hosts  of  God  marshalling  themselves  in 
defence  of  His  weak  and  persecuted  people,  God  Him- 
self standing  within  the  shadow  "keeping  watch  above 
His  own."  In  ch.  xiv.  we  are  shown  the  Lamb  sur- 
rounded by  His  redeemed  host,  whilst  various  angels  go 
forth,  some  of  them  to  urge  loyalty  to  the  true  faith  and 


io6  ST.    JOHN 


to  announce  the  blessedness  "  from  henceforth  "  of  those 
who  die  holding  it  fast,  but  most  of  them  to  warn  men 
concerning  the  perils  of  idolatry,  and  to  proclaim  the 
impending  judgment.  Then,  after  a  heavenly  anthem 
in  which  the  entire  historic  process  of  salvation,  which 
is  to  have  its  consummation  in  the  overthrow  of  Rome, 
is  by  partial  anticipation  celebrated  in  "the  song  of 
Moses "  and  "  the  song  of  the  Lamb,"  the  reader  is 
prepared  for  another  description  of  the  cycle  of  doom. 
Again  the  number  seven  appears,  and,  as  angels  pour 
forth  the  bowls  filled  with  the  wrath  of  God,  the  earth 
becomes  afflicted  with  various  plagues  and  woes,  wide- 
spread in  their  horror,  and  all  of  them  premonitory  of 
the  near  approach  of  the  end.  In  ch.  xvii.  the  grand 
denouement  begins.  To  Rome,  mystically  designated 
Babylon,  and  pictured  as  a  foul  harlot  "  sitting  by  many 
waters  " — a  symbol  of  her  extensive  sway, — the  hour  of 
vengeance  has  come.  The  earthly  agent  of  its  infliction 
is  the  beast  which  "  was  and  is  not,  and  is  about  to  come 
out  of  the  abyss,"  i.e.  Nero  brought  back  from  the  dead 
and  released  for  a  space  from  hell  so  as  to  effect  Rome's 
overthrow.  Supported  by  ten  potentates,  whom  he  has 
hired  with  the  bribe  of  independent  kingship,  he 
marches  on  the  city  which  towards  the  end  of  his  reign 
had  scorned  and  rejected  him,  and  in  fire  and  ravage  he 
takes  a  bloody  revenge.  Heaven  rejoices  in  his  victory, 
and  declares  Rome's  destruction  the  merited  reward  of 


BOOK   OF   THE    REVELATION     107 

her  luxury  and  sin.  Still,  that  is  only  one  stage  of  the 
consummation.  There  would  have  been  no  real 
deliverance  for  the  Church  simply  in  the  substitution  of 
a  Neronian  tyranny  for  that  which  already  existed. 
Evil  may  be  permitted  to  scourge  itself  by  internecine 
strife,  but,  if  right  is  to  be  vindicated,  the  evil  that  sur- 
vives must  also  be  challenged  and  subdued.  Accordingly 
we  have  the  picture  of  the  heavenly  host,  singing  already 
the  Hallelujah  chorus  of  anticipated  triumph  (xix.  6), 
marching  forth  in  dread  array,  their  leader  He  whose 
blood-besprinkled  robe  recalls  His  atoning  sacrifice, 
just  as  the  sharp  sword  proceeding  from  His  mouth 
speaks  of  judgment.  It  is  a  sublime  and  heart-stirring 
vision.  First  the  "  beast,"  with  his  ally,  "  the  false 
prophet,"  is  taken  and  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire;  his 
legions  also  are  exterminated.  Then  Satan,  whose 
instrument  Nero  has  been,  is  also  assailed,  for  it  is  a 
universe  with  all  the  power  of  evil  in  it  shattered  of 
which  this  seer  dares  to  dream.  Adapting  his  forecast 
to  a  scheme  made  sacred  by  previous  apocalyptic,  John 
divides  Satan's  overthrow  into  two  stages.  First  of  all, 
he  is  placed  in  chains  in  the  abyss  for  a  thousand  years, 
during  which  the  Messiah,  surrounded  by  the  martyrs 
who,  because  of  their  faithfulness,  have  been  raised  from 
the  dead,  enjoys  the  glories  of  His  millennial  reign. 
Then  comes  an  interval  during  which  Satan,  released  from 
bondage,  once  again  deceives  the  nations,  and  gathers 


io8  ST.    JOHN 


them  together  for  final  battle  with  the  Messiah.  In 
that  encounter  the  power  of  Satan  is  utterly  broken,  and 
he  himself  consigned  to  unending  torment,  a  doom 
shared,  in  the  second  and  general  resurrection  which  at 
once  takes  place,  by  all  whose  names  are  not  found 
written  in  "  the  book  of  life." 

Thus  is  the  universe  purged  of  wrong  and  the  power 
of  evil  broken.  But  ideal  progress  consists  not  simply 
in  the  absence  of  evil,  but  in  the  perfect  realisation  of 
good.  So  this  vision-prophecy  concludes  with  the 
picture  of  transformed  heavens  and  earth,  with  the  sea 
vanished,  which,  like  Horace's  oceanus  dissociabiliSy  was 
to  the  Jew  the  dread  source  of  peril  and  estrangement. 
The  inauguration  of  the  perfect  reign  of  God  is  marked 
by  the  descent  out  of  heaven  of  the  holy  city  which 
was  to  be  its  sphere.  It  had  long  been  part  of  Jewish 
belief  that,  when  the  kingdom  of  God  was  ushered  in, 
a  new  Jerusalem — Paul's  "  Jerusalem  from  above  " — 
conceived  as  already  existing  with  God,  would  descend 
and  take  the  place  of  the  old  city.  Under  that  form, 
therefore,  John  gives  to  us  his  conception  of  the  ideal 
future.  He  pictures  a  city  wonderful  in  its  proportions 
and  matchless  in  its  beauty,  with  streets  of  gold  and 
gates  of  pearl  and  walls  of  jasper.  Holy  in  that  there 
enters  it  nothing  which  defiles,  healthy  since  its 
inhabitants   know  neither   sickness   nor  death,   happy 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     109 

seeing  that  tears  are  wiped  from  off  all  faces  and  men 
sorrow  no  more,  the  New  Jerusalem,  needing  no  sun 
to  lighten  it  nor  temple  to  localise  its  worship,  is  the 
realisation  of  all  men's  ideals,  the  home  of  a  perfect  and 
redeemed  humanity. 

With  this  sublime  picture  of  the  goal  of  progress  the 
Apocalypse  draws  to  its  close.  The  epilogue  consists 
of  a  few  admonitions  and  warnings  which,  seeing  that 
the  writer  puts  them  into  the  mouth  of  Christ,  bespeak 
John's  profound  conviction  as  to  the  truth  of  the 
message  which  he  had  felt  moved  to  declare.  And 
can  we  not  feel  that  in  substance  his  message  was  right, 
and  stands  eternally  true?  What  he  says  in  effect  is 
that,  because  we  live  in  a  universe  in  which  God  exists 
and  works,  right  will  finally  prove  stronger  than  might, 
and  deliverance  come  to  all  who  are  oppressed. 
"Greater  is  He  that  is  in  you,"  he  seems  to  say 
to  the  Church,  "  than  he  that  is  in  the  world."  The 
ultimate  victory  of  progress  has  its  guarantee  in  the 
power  of  God  and  in  the  present  activity  of  His  Spirit. 
It  may  be  true  that  John,  as  he  applied  this  inspired 
conviction  to  the  immediate  situation,  gave  a  forecast 
of  the  movement  of  history  with  which  actual  events 
failed  to  agree,  but  therein  he  simply  betrays  the 
limitations  which  attach  to  every  true  prophet.  It  is 
one  of  the   characteristics  of  prophecy  that,  in  fore- 


ST.    JOHN 


casting  the  future,  it  often  errs  as  to  time  and  mode  ; 
the  perspective  of  history  is  foreshortened,  and  the 
prophet  is  much  more  sure  as  to  issues  than  he  is 
concerning  processes.  But  that  is  only  what  we  might 
expect  from  an  inspiration  which  worked  in  a  vital, 
as  distinct  from  a  mechanical,  way.  We  may  feel,  too, 
that  the  whole  notion  of  apocalyptic  was  defective  in 
that  it  isolated  man,  and  left  issues  and  ideals  to  be 
realised  by  the  exclusive  and  dramatic  intervention  of 
God.  We,  with  our  deeper  knowledge  of  the  movement 
of  history  and  of  the  relations  which  bind  God  and 
man  in  holy  partnership,  have  come  to  see  that  God 
-works  not  so  much  by  revolution  as  by  evolution,  and 
that  the  New  Jerusalem  is  not  simply  the  gift  of  God 
from  above  but  the  product  of  man's  striving  from 
beneath.  Every  book,  however,  has  to  be  judged  by 
the  age  in  which  it  is  written,  and  by  the  immediate 
situation  to  which  it  is  addressed.  The  message  of  the 
Apocalypse  is  not  necessarily  untrue,  because  it  is  not 
the  whole  truth.  In  times  of  darkness  and  strain,  when 
the  limits  of  both  our  strength  and  wisdom  are  over- 
passed, this  Book  has  a  special  message  for  us,  remind- 
ing us  then  that,  though  we  have  become  so  weak  and 
helpless  that  we  can  do  nothing,  there  is  still  left  to  us 
a  God  who  can  do  everything.  And  in  hours  less 
exhausting,  when,  nevertheless,  foes  are  hot  and  eager, 
and  the  battle  for  the  right  is  prolonged  and  hangs  with 


BOOK    OF   THE    REVELATION     iii 

dubious  issue,  it  is  well  to  be  reminded  of  the  unseen 
hosts  that  are  on  our  side,  and,  looking  through  John's 
eyes  into  the  open  heaven,  to  behold  the  final  triumph 
of  the  will  of  God.  A  Book  which,  with  unrivalled 
splendour  of  imagery,  conveys  to  the  travailing  Church 
of  Christ  such  convictions  and  hopes,  was  worthy  to 
bring  the  canon  of  revelation  to  a  close. 


II 

OTHER  NEW  TESTAMENT 
TEACHERS 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   EPISTLE  OF  JAMES 

If  we  could  trust  the  opening  words  of  this  Epistle,  the 
problems  of  its  date  and  authorship  would  lie  within  a 
narrow  compass,  since  it  professes  to  come  from  "  James, 
a  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Three 
persons  bearing  the  name  of  James  appear  on  the  stage 
of  New  Testament  history,  but  of  these  James  the  brother 
of  John  is  speedily  removed  by  martyrdom,  whilst  James 
the  son  of  Alphseus  is  a  lay  figure,  of  whom  nothing  is 
known  beyond  his  name.  The  remaining  James  became 
in  A.D.  44  head  of  the  Christian  society  at  Jerusalem, 
and  from  that  time  forward,  as  we  learn  from  various 
sources,  was  not  only  influential  in  the  councils  of 
the  Church,  but  commanded  also  the  respect  of  the 
general  Jewish  community.  As  one  of  the  brethren 
of  Jesus,  who  believed  in  Him  after  His  resurrection, 
this  James  alone  was  sufficiently  eminent  to  be  known 
by  the  name  without  some  added  description,  so  that 
not  only  here  does  he  style  himself  simply  "  James," 
but  Jude,  his  brother,  when  writing  his  little  Epistle^ 


ii6     NEW   TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

thought  it  a  sufficient  introduction  to  his  readers  to 
denote  himself  as  *'Jude,  a  brother  of  James."  As 
regards  the  Epistle  now  under  discussion,  it  is  the 
general  opinion  of  those  who  reject,  as  well  as  of 
those  who  accept,  this  James  as  its  writer,  that  the 
opening  salutation  is  intended  to  assign  its  authorship 
to  James  of  Jerusalem.  Those  critics,  therefore,  who 
regard  it  as  a  product  of  the  second  century,  and 
simply  attributed  to  James  because  it  accorded  with 
the  point  of  view  assigned  to  him  by  tradition,  are 
beset  with  the  difficulty  that,  under  those  circumstances, 
a  more  explicit  description  than  "  James "  would  have 
been  used  to  denote  the  alleged  author. 

If  we  turn  to  the  Epistle  itself  we  find  much  that 
sustains  its  traditional  authorship.  Criticism  has  justly 
described  it  as  the  least  dogmatic  of  all  the  New 
Testament  writings.  It  is  concerned  supremely  with 
problems  of  conduct.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  receives 
great  prominence,  whilst  His  death  and  resurrection 
are  almost  ignored.  The  quotations,  too,  in  which 
that  teaching  is  recalled,  seem  to  be  cited  from  memory 
rather  than  culled  from  documents,  the  inference  being 
that  the  Gospel  story  was  as  yet  in  the  oral  stage  of 
transmission.  The  absence  of  theological  interest  is 
most  credibly  assigned  to  that  early  period  in  the 
life  of  the  Church  when,  though  the  Gospel  facts  were 
proclaimed,    the    construing    of  them   in   terms   of  a 


THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES        117 

theology  had  yet  to  take  place.  Moreover,  when  James 
wrote,  the  days  of  miracle  were  not  past  (v.  15),  the 
return  of  Jesus  was  shortly  expected  (v.  9),  and  the 
controversy  as  to  the  obligation  of  Christians  towards 
the  Mosaic  Law  had  not  yet  become  acute.  If,  too, 
we  regard  Palestine  as  the  home  of  the  writer, — and 
figures  and  illustrations  in  the  Epistle  which  would 
occur  naturally  to  a  Palestinian,  lend  support  to  this 
view, — the  social  conditions  depicted  are  those  of  the 
first  century  and  prior  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The 
most  significant  feature  of  the  Epistle,  however,  is  the 
intense  sympathy  of  its  writer  with  Judaism.  He  moves 
familiarly  among  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament, 
finding  there,  and  not,  as  he  sometimes  might  have 
done,  in  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus,  illustrations  to 
enforce  his  appeals.  The  very  faith  which,  when 
divorced  from  works,  he  denounces,  is  illustrated  by  a 
reference  to  the  Shetna^  that  confession  of  faith  recited 
daily  by  every  pious  Jew,  and  beginning ;  "  Hear,  O 
Israel;  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord."  Moreover, 
not  only  does  James  offer  no  hint  as  to  the  existence 
of  Gentile-Christian  communities,  but  the  persons  to 
whom  he  writes  worship  in  the  "  synagogue  '*  (ii.  2), 
and  their  sufferings,  which  included  in  some  cases 
arraignment  before  **  the  judgment- seats  "  (ii.  6),  were 
such  as  came,  not  from  their  Roman  overlords,  but 
from  their  Jewish  brethren.     Lastly,  yet  not  least  in  its 


ii8     NEWTESTAMENT   TEACHERS 

significance,  the  Epistle  in  its  formal  salutation  makes 
no  pretence  to  be  a  distinctively  Christian  document. 
It  is  addressed  "  to  the  twelve  tribes  which  are  of  the 
Dispersion,"  a  phrase  which  is  most  naturally  interpreted 
to  mean,  not  an  ideal  and  Christian  Israel,  but  the 
Jewish  community  as  a  whole.  It  is  quite  true,  the 
Epistle  itself  being  witness,  that  James,  a  Christian 
himself,  has  mainly  in  view  Jewish  Christians,  or  such 
Jews  as  possessed  sympathy  with  the  Christian  movement. 
But  the  fact  that  in  his  salutation  he  does  not  segregate 
these  from  Judaism  and  treat  them  as  a  distinct  entity, 
points  to  the  time  when  the  Church  was  not  only 
confined  to  Judaism,  but  was  regarded  as  a  reform 
movement  within  its  borders,  Christians  still  using  the 
synagogues  and  reverencing  the  traditions  of  the  older 
faith.  The  sharp  schism,  which  resulted  in  the  Christian 
Church  being  organised  as  a  separate  institution,  had 
not  yet  taken  place.  For  such  conditions  in  the  early 
Church  we  must  look  to  the  time  prior  to  a.d.  50,  and 
that  view,  therefore,  has  most  to  say  for  itself  which 
dates  this  Epistle  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of 
that  year.  In  spite  of  those  eminent  critics  who  would 
relegate  its  composition  to  the  second  century,  we  may 
confidently  regard  it  as  the  oldest  surviving  document  of 
apostolic  Christianity. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  how  James  came  to  write  this 
Epistle.     Living  at   Jerusalem,  to   which  Jews  of  the 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES        119 

Dispersion  were  constantly  resorting,  he  had  unique 
opportunities  of  knowing  the  state  of  the  Jewish  world. 
The  "myriads  among  the  Jews"  who  had  believed, 
and  were  at  the  same  time  "  zealous  for  the  law  "  (Acts 
xxi.  20),  doubtless  included  many  from  the  Dispersion 
as  well  as  Jews  resident  in  Palestine ;  and  of  the 
former  many  would  date  their  first  sympathy  with 
Christianity  from  some  visit  to  Jerusalem  and  contact 
with  Jewish  Christians  of  the  type  of  James.  Given 
much  to  intercession  for  his  nation,  and  commonly 
called  "  the  Just "  because  of  his  piety,  James  com- 
bined in  himself  the  ethical  enthusiasm  of  the  old 
prophets  and  the  mellow  wisdom  of  the  later  Jewish 
literature.  In  language  as  well  as  in  ideas  affinity  has 
been  detected  between  this  Epistle  and  the  Books  of 
Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus.  But  what  James  derived 
from  these  sources  was  wholly  suffused  with  the  teach- 
ing and  spirit  of  Jesus.  This  is  supremely  a  Christian 
document,  moving  on  the  high  plane  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  much  of  whose  teaching  it  in  spirit  or  letter 
reproduces. 

The  Epistle  is  unsystematic  in  construction, 
and  was  intended  to  hearten  its  readers  in  their 
trials  and  to  correct  certain  defects  in  their  conduct. 
Those  to  whom  James  spoke  were  subject  to  trial. 
This  arose  partly  from  their  fellow-countrymen,  who, 
in  some  instances,  lent  themselves  either  to  religious 


120     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

persecution  or  to  social  injustice.  But  the  main  source 
was  the  unfriendly  atmosphere  in  which  these  Jews  of 
the  Dispersion  lived.  The  pressure  from  without  was 
sometimes  so  severe  as  to  strain  their  faith  almost  to 
breaking-point.  Nevertheless  James  forbids  them  to 
yield.  He  reminds  them  of  the  religious  value  of  trial, 
in  that  they  could  glean  from  it  the  fruit  of  patience. 
The  resolute  endurance  of  wrong  and  hardship — for 
it  is  an  active  rather  than  a  passive  grace  which  James 
denotes  by  the  term  "patience" — was  a  quality  by 
which  this  Epistle  sets  great  store.  So  precious  was 
it,  making  the  man  in  whom  it  had  ripened  to  the  full 
"  perfect  and  entire,  lacking  in  nothing,"  that  the  mani- 
fold trials  in  whose  endurance  it  was  gained  were  to 
be  borne,  not  with  the  fortitude  of  a  Stoic,  but  with 
the  joy  of  a  Christian. 

Such  was  the  message  of  James  to  his  afflicted 
brethren.  One  thing  which  is  very  manifest  in  his 
Epistle  is  his  sympathy  for  the  poor  and  his  distrust 
of  the  rich.  Jewish  society  in  the  Dispersion  had 
its  extremes  of  poverty  and  wealth.  Apart,  however, 
from  the  injustice  which  frequently  stained  the 
latter,  what  stirred  the  soul  of  James  was  that  social 
differences  intruded  even  into  religious  worship.  The 
picture  of  the  rich  man  with  the  gold  ring  and  the  fine 
apparel,  who  is  treated  with  obsequious  deference  as 
he  enters  the  synagogue,  whilst  the  poor  man  is  con- 


THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES        121 

. — ^ — 

temptuously  bidden  either  to  stand  or  to  sit  on  the 
floor  near  to  some  one's  footstool,  was  doubtless  drawn 
from  life.  James  protests  against  such  invidious  dis- 
tinctions. Accepting  the  later  conceptions  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  which  "the  poor"  and  "the  quiet  in 
the  land "  were  also  the  pious,  whilst  "  rich "  is 
frequently  synonymous  with  "  wicked,"  he  recalls  his 
readers  to  the  true  standard  of  worth.  Men  were  to  be 
judged  not  by  what  they  had,  but  by  what  they  were,  and 
therein  the  balance  dipped  against  the  rich.  Not  only 
did  rich  men,  as  masters,  oppress  their  labourers,  but 
in  religion  they  were  the  vindictive  persecutors  of  the 
righteous,  haling  them  before  the  synagogue-tribunals, 
and,  in  the  case  of  Christians,  reviling  the  holy  name 
which  had  been  called  over  them  in  their  baptism 
(ii.  6,  7).  To  yield  special  honour  to  wealth  was  to 
forget  the  beatitude  in  which  Jesus  had  assigned  the 
Kingdom  pre-eminently  to  the  poor  (Luke  vi.  20).  But 
James'  final  appeal  is  to  the  law  of  love.  To  love  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves  was  more  than  an  Old  Testa- 
ment injunction ;  it  was  "  the  royal  law  "  in  the  sense 
that,  as  regards  human  relations,  Jesus  had  made  it 
the  supreme  law  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  love 
thereby  enjoined  made  unbrotherly  distinctions  impos- 
sible. The  argument  of  James  attained  special  cogency 
from  his  conception  of  the  moral  law  as  a  unity.  We 
may  trace  this  idea,  not  so  much  to  Christ's  compres- 


122  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

sion  of  the  whole  law  into  the  single  commandment 
of  love,  as  to  precepts  of  the  rabbis,  who,  not  without 
occasional  extravagances  of  interpretation,  made  breach 
of  one  commandment  the  violation  of  all.  Happily 
James  does  not  linger  in  this  dubious  region,  for  his 
final  word  is  a  command  that  his  readers  should  speak 
and  act  as  those  who  are  to  be  judged  by  "  a  law  of 
liberty."  Twice  in  this  Epistle  does  he  use  that  -strik- 
ing phrase  to  describe  the  Christian  rule  of  life.  To 
speak  in  the  same  breath  of  law  and  liberty  seems 
a  contradiction  in  terms,  yet  in  this  instance  the  con- 
tradiction is  resolved  in  a  higher  unity.  For  when 
law  and  nature  have  become  attuned,  even  law  becomes 
the  sphere  of  freedom,  since  duty  is  no  longer  imposed 
but  chosen,  and  service  is  the  spontaneous  offering  of 
the  spirit.  When  the  soul,  though  under  law,  no  longer 
knows  it  as  a  fetter,  religion  has  become  inner  and 
spiritual.     In  that  ideal  James  and  Jesus  are  one. 

Another  point  wherein  this  Epistle  bears  the  mark  of 
Jesus  is  in  the  importance  which  is  attached  to  conduct. 
In  sayings  which  seem  to  recall  the  close  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  James  bids  his  readers  be  "  doers  of  the 
word,  and  not  hearers  only."  Using  the  figure  of  a 
mirror,  he  compares  the  mere  hearer  to  a  man  who  gives 
simply  a  passing  glance  at  his  reflection,  with  the  result 
that  he  speedily  forgets  what  he  is  like.  The  true 
hearer,  however,  keeps  a  steadfast  gaze  upon  the  holy 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES        123 

law  {cf.  the  Psalmist's  words  :  "  In  His  law  doth  he 
meditate  day  and  night "),  and,  in  consequence,  duty  con- 
templated becomes  duty  done.  In  words  which  seem 
deliberately  to  recall  legalism  with  its  outward  lustrations 
and  ceremonial  observances,  James  affirms  that,  in  the 
sight  of  Him  who  is  God  and  Father,  the  purest  ritual  is 
to  show  kindness  to  the  afflicted,  and  to  keep  the  soul 
free  from  the  stain  of  sin;  in  brief,  the  true  "Divine 
service  "  is  a  life  of  holiness  and  love. 

Such  teaching  shows  how  far  James,  with  all  his 
affinities  for  Judaism,  had  passed  beyond  the  merely 
legalistic  temper.  His  enthusiasm  for  the  practical  and 
ethical  appears  also  in  his  discussion  of  the  relation 
between  faith  and  works.  Many  critics  see  in  this  dis- 
cussion a  counter- statement  to  Paul's  teaching  that 
justification  is  conceded  to  faith,  and  not  mediated  by 
"works  of  the  law."  But  a  close  examination  reveals 
that  the  two  theories  move  on  different  planes.  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  the  faith  which  justifies  has 
Christ  as  its  object,  whilst  in  its  content  it  is  the  move- 
ment of  the  whole  personality — thought,  feeling,  and 
will — towards  the  object  of  trust.  In  James,  however, 
faith  looks  towards  God,  and  has  other  than  the  Pauline 
signification.  In  two  passages,  where  it  is  applied  to 
prayer  (i.  6,  v.  15),  it  denotes,  as  in  the  Gospels,  a  joyful 
confidence  in  the  goodness  of  God.  In  the  section, 
however,   concerned   with  faith   and  works   it   implies 


124     NEW   TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

simply  an  intellectual  assent  to  certain  truths  such  as 
demons  exhibit,  when  they  approve  the  dogma  that  God 
is  one;  it  is  a  cold  conviction  exerting  no  pressure 
upon  the  springs  of  action,  and  is  parallel,  therefore,  to 
a  heartless  injunction  to  the  needy  to  be  warmed  and 
filled,  whilst  their  wants  are  left  unsupplied.  The  re- 
lation between  creed  and  conduct  was  one  of  the  prob- 
lems debated  in  the  rabbinic  schools,  Abraham,  and 
Rahab  being  probably  stock  illustrations  adduced  in 
the  discussion.  The  term  "justify"  came  also  from 
the  same  source.  Again,  whereas  the  works  of  which 
Paul  spoke  are  definitely  called  "  works  of  the  law,"  i.e. 
good  deeds  done  merely  under  the  constraint  of  external 
commandment,  and  so  constituting  simply  a  formal  or 
legal  righteousness,  James  speaks  of  "works,"  ue.  con- 
duct in  general.  Paul  was  concerned  about  the  inner 
side  of  the  religious  life.  There  he  saw  that  the 
operative  principle  was  "  faith,"  and  he  was  content  to 
lay  upon  it  the  whole  burden  of  the  sinner's  justifica- 
tion, not  because  he  was  indifferent  to  conduct,  but 
because  the  principle,  being  what  it  was,  could  not  but 
express  itself  in  life.  Faith  was  an  explosive  power,  a 
moral  dynamic  that  worked  by  love.  "Works  of  the 
law"  there  might  be,  where  this  faith  was  absent,  but, 
conceding  its  presence,  appropriate  conduct  was  bound 
to  ensue.  But  not  so  with  faith  as  James  views  it,  for, 
moving  as  it  did,  in  the  chill  region  of  the  intellect,  it 


THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES        125 

could  conceivably  exist  apart  from  works,  and  when  it 
was  thus  isolated,  it  was  "dead";  like  the  body  with 
no  indwelling  spirit,  it  lacked  the  completeness  which 
belongs  to  life.  So  what  James  assails  is  the  divorce 
of  creed  from  conduct,  the  schism  between  profession 
and  practice. 

There  are  several  sins  against  which  James  utters  a 
special  warning.  One  is  a  sin  of  temper.  Some  of 
the  churches  were  rent  with  faction  or  honeycombed 
with  jealousy.  Men  who  possessed  "  wisdom,"  and  so 
aspired  to  teach,  looked  with  envy  upon  others  with 
the  same  gift.  James  feels  moved  to  pronounce  such 
"wisdom"  demonic  in  its  source,  and  earthly  in  the 
sense  that  it  lacked  spiritual  illumination.  The  true 
wisdom,  he  says,  came  from  above, — the  man  who  lacked 
it  could  obtain  it  from  God  for  the  asking, — and  it  bore 
the  proof  of  its  source  upon  it,  in  that  it  was  pure  and 
gentle  and  docile,  not  given  to  strife  or  hypocrisy,  but 
full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits  (v.  17).  In  that  teaching 
we  have  an  echo  of  Christ's  own  claim  when,  after  pro- 
fessing to  be  the  medium  of  a  unique  revelation.  He 
bade  men  come  to  Him  and  learn  of  Him,  "  for,"  said 
He,  "I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart"  (Matt.  xi.  29). 
"Wisdom"  has  its  true  setting  in  a  pure  and  gentle 
spirit 

Another  sin  which  James  rebukes  is  the  uncontrolled 
use  of  the  tongue.     In  various  ways  the  tongue  yielded 


126  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

to  license.  The  Oriental  tendency  to  strengthen  speech 
by  garnishing  it  with  all  manner  of  profane  phrases 
caused  James  to  reiterate  our  Lord's  summons  to  abso- 
lute simplicity  of  statement,  whether  in  affirmation  or 
denial  (v.  12).  Violence  of  language  often  had  its  root 
in  heat  of  temper,  passion  being  most  easily  kindled  in 
religious  controversy.  Hence  we  have  the  exhortation 
to  be  swift  to  hear  but  slow  to  speak,  slow  above  all  to 
the  anger  which  was  inimical  to  righteousness,  in  that 
it  neither  commended  sound  doctrine  nor  promoted 
good  living  (i.  19,  20).  Eager  aspirants  to  the  office  of 
religious  teacher  are  sobered  by  a  reminder  of  the  solemn 
responsibility  attaching  to  the  use  of  the  tongue,  which, 
as  James  views  it,  is  the  key  to  man's  whole  nature 
(iii.  1,2).  Resorting  to  picturesque  figure,  he  compares 
the  tongue  to  the  bridle  in  the  horse's  mouth,  or  to  the 
tiny  helm  controlling  the  course  of  a  great  vessel.  Its 
malignity  is  seen  in  the  mischief  which  it  is  capable  of 
doing.  Like  the  little  spark  which  wraps  in  flame  a 
great  plantation,  the  tongue,  itself  set  on  fire  by  hell, 
inflames  the  whole  movement  of  life.  In  the  microcosm 
of  man's  personality  it  corresponds  to  the  sinful  world 
in  humanity.  It  is  an  untamed  beast  defying  control, 
or  a  venomous  serpent  working  destruction.  In  its 
subjugation,  therefore,  lies  the  task  of  the  Christian. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  inconsistency  of  the  same  tongue 
being  used  both  to  bless  God  when  He  is  worshipped, 


THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES        127 

and  to  curse  men  who,  being  made  in  God's  likeness, 
deserve  blessing  too,  so  that  it  is  as  if  a  fountain  from 
the  same  orifice  sent  forth  both  salt  water  and  sweet,  or 
a  fig-tree  or  vine  yielded  alien  fruit,  there  can  be  no 
religion  where  the  tongue  is  left  unbridled.  James  sub- 
mits religion  to  this  solitary  test.  Does  a  man  not 
stumble  in  his  speech?  Then  the  same  is  a  perfect 
man,  for  his  control  of  his  most  rebellious  faculty  argues 
a  similar  dominion  over  the  rest.  Does  a  man,  whilst 
thinking  himself  to  be  religious,  fail  to  bridle  his  tongue  ? 
Then,  says  James  with  swift  precision :  "  This  man's 
religion  is  vain."  Such  is  the  teaching  of  this  Epistle, 
and  if,  as  we  read  James'  words,  we  are  tempted  to  feel 
that,  important  as  is  the  due  regulation  of  the  tongue, 
he  has  attached  an  exaggerated  value  to  it  in  the  scale 
of  the  virtues,  we  can,  on  the  other  hand,  infer  how 
great  must  have  been  the  license  which  called  for  such 
a  strong  pronouncement. 

The  social  teaching  of  this  Epistle  calls  for  but  brief 
exposition.  The  wrongs  which  some  of  its  readers  were 
suffering,  in  that  their  wages  were  fraudulently  withheld 
by  their  masters,  move  James  to  an  indignant  denuncia- 
tion which  is  quite  in  the  old  prophetic  strain.  It  is 
interesting  to  observe  that  in  this  connection  we  have 
James'  reference  to  the  Second  Coming  of  our  Lord. 
Not  only  does  he,  in  harmony  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  associate  with  that  Coming  the 


128     NEW   TESTAMENT   TEACHERS 

drama  of  judgment,  but  he  looks  upon  the  return  of 
Christ  as  near  at  hand.  The  unjust  and  grasping  rich 
are  bidden,  therefore,  to  "  howl  for  the  miseries  "  which 
are  coming  upon  them.  All  their  unholy  devices  to 
secure  wealth  will  avail  them  nothing.  Already  their 
costly  garments  are  moth-eaten,  and  the  canker  of  rust 
has  settled  on  their  gold,  because,  little  as  they  dream 
of  it,  it  is  in  the  "  last  days "  that  they  have  laid  up 
their  treasure  (v.  3),  and  the  end  of  their  enjoyment  of 
it  is  at  hand.  But  if  the  bitterness  of  loss  and  illusion 
thus  awaited  the  rich,  vindication  was  also  impending 
for  those  whom  the  rich  had  defrauded.  He  who 
even  now  stood  at  the  door  was  the  Judge,  and  He 
would  execute  judgment  for  all  who  were  oppressed. 
The  poor,  therefore,  are  urged  to  suffer  with  patience, 
stifling  even  the  murmurs  against  their  masters  to  which 
they  are  tempted.  "  Remember,"  he  says  to  his  readers, 
"  the  patience  of  Job.  Recall  how  in  that  instance  the 
end  displayed  the  pity  and  mercy  of  God.  Cultivate 
the  same  virtue  in  your  hardships,  and  in  due  time  you 
shall  reap  the  same  reward." 

Whilst  he  attacks  the  wrong  which  often  stained  the  ac- 
quisition of  wealth,  James,  like  Jesus  before  him,  evinces 
no  hostility  to  rich  men  simply  on  the  ground  of  their 
riches.  What  he  condemns  in  them  is  the  unregulated 
thirst  for  pleasure  which  too  often  was  their  motive  in 
the  quest  for  riches,  and  the  unspiritual  temper  which 


THE    EPISTLE    OF   JAMES        129 

wealth  is  apt  to  engender.  In  other  words,  he  surveys 
the  social  problem  from  the  standpoint,  not  of  economics, 
but  of  religion.  The  fierce  competition  in  the  pursuit  of 
gain,  issuing,  as  it  did,  in  such  contention  and  hurt  as 
James  can  only  describe  in  terms  of  a  battlefield,  is 
attributed  by  him  to  an  unsatisfied  lust  for  pleasure. 
So  blunted  had  the  moral  sense  of  some  aspirants  for 
wealth  become  that  they  even  made  its  acquisition  a 
subject  of  prayer,  only  to  find  that  the  sinful  ends  for 
which  they  coveted  it  resulted  in  the  frustration  of 
their  prayer  by  God  (iv.  3).  Moreover,  the  rich  man 
was  constantly  haunted  by  the  spectre  of  materialism 
threatening  the  divorce  of  the  soul  from  God.  James 
pictures  the  presumptuous  spirit  in  which  such  a  man 
often  announced  his  plans  for  business  or  travel,  forget- 
ting in  the  pride  of  his  heart  that  the  continued  life  on 
which  he  was  so  confidently  reckoning  was  wholly  de- 
pendent on  the  will  of  God.  But  to  the  rich  a  more 
subtle  peril  than  even  a  presumptuous  pride  was  the 
despiritualising  of  life.  Since  God  would  not  tolerate 
a  divided  allegiance,  devotion  to  material  ends,  or,  as 
James  calls  it,  "  friendship  with  the  world,"  meant 
enmity  with  God.  In  a  striking  phrase  James  speaks  of 
the  Spirit  planted  by  God  in  man  as  yearning  over  him 
with  a  jealousy  that  can  brook  no  rival  (iv.  5).  The 
demand  made  upon  the  rich  man,  therefore,  is  that  he 
shall  cultivate  a  quiet  and  submissive  spirit,  resist  the 

I 


I30  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

temptations  incident  to  his  calling  and  station,  and 
abide  in  close  fellowship  with  God,  cleansing  his  hands 
from  evil  deeds  and  his  heart  from  divided  loyalties.  In 
such  a  humbling  of  soul  James  bids  rich  men  rejoice, 
because  only  thus  would  they,  with  a  wealth  that  some- 
times withered  like  the  flower  of  the  grass  before  the 
sirocco's  hot  breath,  have  secure  possession  of  a  treasure 
that  would  not  fade  away.  Thus  over  the  fierce  clamour 
of  the  world's  market-place  the  clear  voice  of  James, 
like  the  muezzin  sounding  the  call  to .  prayer  from  the 
minaret  of  an  Eastern  mosque,  bids  the  faithful  guard 
even  in  their  money-making  the  deep  interests  of  the 
spirit. 

So  what  we  have  in  James  is  a  re-publication,  with 
adaptation  to  existing  conditions,  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus.  It  is  significant  that  even  salvation  is  defined  in 
terms  of  truth,  for  it  consists  in  being  begotten  "  by  the 
word  of  truth  "  (i.  i8),  or  in  receiving  "  with  meekness  the 
implanted  word"  (i.  21),  i.e.  in  accepting  with  humble 
submission  the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  the  rule  of  life. 
James  betrays  throughout  this  letter  the  influence  of  his 
greater  Brother.  If  we  lack  teaching  about  Jesus,  we 
are  given  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  message  that  lies 
at  the  heart  of  this  letter  is  that  religion  is  life  in  fellow- 
ship with  a  holy  and  loving  God.  James,  devout  even 
to  asceticism,  and  bearing  about  him  the  air  of  another 
world,  comes  with  this  clear  call  to  the  highest  into  the 


THE    EPISTLE    OF    JAMES        131 

strife  of  tongues  and  the  din  of  the  world's  traffic, 
and  he  summons  the  suffering  and  the  oppressed,  the 
worldling  and  the  scandal-monger,  the  formalist  and 
"  the  wise,"  back  to  the  gracious  realities  of  faith  and 
love.  We  may  be  thankful  that  among  early  Christian 
literature  there  has  been  preserved  for  us  an  Epistle 
which  has  so  clearly  stamped  upon  it  the  hall-mark  of 
Jesus. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS    - 

The  authorship  and  destination  of  this  Epistle  remain 
among  the  unsolved  and,  it  is  to  be  feared,  insoluble 
problems  of  New  Testament  criticism.  As  regards  its 
author,  the  saying  attributed  to  Origen,  "Who  it  was 
that  really  wrote  the  Epistle,  God  only  knows,"  still 
describes  the  situation.  The  one  point  on  which  criti- 
cism is  agreed  is  that  the  tradition,  which  regarded  Paul 
as  the  author,  and  which  even  in  the  early  Church  had 
currency  only  in  Alexandria,  is  not  credible.  In  default 
of  Paul  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  has  been  assigned 
to  various  persons — to  Apollos  because  of  the  affinities 
with  the  Alexandrian  philosophy  which  the  letter  ex- 
hibits; to  Barnabas  because  of  his  influence  in  the 
Palestinian  churches,  and  because,  too,  this  "word  of 
exhortation  "  might  suitably  come  from  one  who  was  a 
*'  son  of  exhortation " ;  to  Philip,  assuming  that  the 
Epistle  was  sent  from  Caesarea  to  the  Judaising  section 

of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem.     But  the  most  interesting 

132 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     133 

view  of  all,  and  one  to  which  Harnack  gives  his  adhesion, 
is  that  it  may  have  been  written  by  Priscilla  or  Aquila, 
and  preferably  by  the  former.  It  has  been  pointed  out 
that,  in  the  roll-call  of  the  worthies  distinguished  by 
faith,  women,  or  deeds  wrought  by  them,  receive  an 
honoured  place  (though  the  non-mention  of  Deborah  is 
difficult  to  explain).  The  intrusion  of  a  woman  into 
the  realm  of  authorship  may  have  so  startled  the  narrow 
ecclesiasticism  of  the  primitive  Church  that  the  tradition 
of  it  was  suppressed.  Whatever  value  may  attach  to 
these  various  theories,  it  is  clear  that  no  one  of  them  is 
sufficiently  established  to  be  final. 

The  same  conclusion  applies  to  the  related  problem 
of  the  destination  of  the  Epistle.  One  thing  of  which 
its  study  convinces  us  is  that  it  was  not  written  at  large. 
No  other  New  Testament  writing,  not  excepting  even 
the  letters  to  the  Corinthians,  takes  us  more  vividly  into 
the  heart  of  a  definite  historical  situation.  Whatever 
pertinence  this  Epistle  may  have  had  to  Jewish  Chris- 
tians in  general,  it  was  addressed  in  the  first  instance  to 
a  specific  community  of  that  type,  for  we  may  dismiss 
the  somewhat  curious  view  that  its  first  readers  were 
Gentile  Christians  who  were  in  danger  of  lapsing  into 
irreligion  or  paganism.  A  few  phrases,  such  as  "to  fall 
away  from  the  living  God,"  seem,  when  regarded  in 
isolation,  to  lend  plausibility  to  that  view;  but  over 
against  them  must  be  set  the  whole  drift  of  the  Epistle, 


134     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

which  is  a  many-sided  exposure,  not  of  the  emptiness  of 
paganism,  but  of  the  inferiority  of  Judaism  to  Chris- 
tianity. As  regards  the  home  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
addressed,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  Csesarea,  and  Rome 
have  all,  with  varying  degrees  of  probability,  been 
suggested. 

But  though  the  locality  of  the  church  remains  un- 
determined, the  situation  within  it  is  clearly  portrayed  in 
the  Epistle  itself.  A  crisis  had  arisen  in  which  loyalty 
to  the  Christian  faith  was  imperilled.  So  grave  and 
imminent  was  the  danger  that  the  writer  of  this  letter 
cannot  wait  until  he  was  able  to  visit  the  church,  as 
he  hoped  shortly  to  do,  but  sends  to  it  forthwith  this 
message  of  warning  and  appeal.  His  whole  aim  is  to 
save  his  readers  from  apostasy.  For  the  existence  of  this 
danger  two  causes  were  responsible.  One  was  the  circum- 
stances in  which  these  Christians  were  placed.  Con- 
verted long  ago  through  the  preaching  of  men  who  had 
been  eye-witnesses  of  Jesus,  and  sustaining  shortly  after 
that  event  severe  persecution  and  the  spoiling  of  their 
goods, — a  reference,  doubtless,  if  this  community  was  in 
Palestine,  to  the  harrying  of  the  Church  by  Paul  before 
his  conversion, — they  had  lived  long  enough  to  see  their 
leaders  one  by  one  pass  away,  whilst  the  expectation 
of  Christ's  visible  return  still  remained  unfulfilled. 
Moreover,  their  attachment  to  Christianity  earned  for 
them  the  scorn  of  their  neighbours.     Twice  does  the 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     135 

writer  of  this  Epistle  refer  to  *'  the  reproach  of  Christ,"  by 
which,  as  xiii.  13  shows,  can  only  be  meant  the  stigma 
affixed  to  these  Christians  because  of  their  breach  with 
Judaism,  and  their  alienation  from  the  common  senti- 
ment of  their  nation.  What  significance  this  acquires 
if  the  scene  be  Palestine,  and  the  time  those  troubled 
years  which  preceded  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  State ! 
More  and  more  among  orthodox  Jews  circumstances 
were  bringing  to  the  ascendant  the  party  of  fanaticism 
and  violence.  An  armed  struggle  with  Rome,  a  renewal 
of  the  old  battle  for  independence,  was  becoming  daily 
more  certain.  Those  who,  like  the  Christians,  remained 
aloof  from  this  movement,  were  exposed  to  the  reproach 
of  being  unpatriotic,  for  what  had  they  to  offer  as  a 
counter-policy  ?  Simply  patient  waiting  for  a  Messiah, 
whose  return,  already  long  delayed,  seemed  more  and 
more  doubtful.  What  wonder  if,  under  this  external 
pressure,  their  older  faith,  linked  as  it  was  with  patriotic 
zeal,  drew  them  back  to  it,  so  that  they  became  lax  in 
their  attendance  at  Christian  worship  (x.  25)  and  were 
in  danger  of  drifting  from  faith  in  Christ ! 

A  faith  possessed  so  long,  and  yet  in  peril  of  being 
lost,  can  never  have  been  gripped  securely,  and  that 
is  indeed  the  complaint  which  the  writer  of  this  letter 
urges  against  his  readers.  He  blames  them  for  their 
spiritual  immaturity.  Their  defect  lay  in  the  realm 
of  ideas.     They  had  too  feeble,  because  too  superficial, 


136  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

a  conception  of  the  Christian  faith.  They  had  not 
reached  to  its  heart  and  seen  its  deep  spiritual  implica- 
tions. And  so  in  this  Epistle  they  are  summoned  to 
leave  rudimentary  positions  and  questions,  such  as  the 
discussion  of  the  mode  and  virtue  of  ritual  washings 
and  the  impositions  of  hands,  or  theorisings  as  to  the 
resurrection  and  judgment  associated  with  the  Messiah's 
reappearance,  and  they  are  urged  to  press  on  to 
"perfection,"  to  that  deep  and  comprehensive  view  of 
Christ  and  His  work  which  alone  could  keep  them 
from  drifting. 

For  this  writer  sees  clearly  that  Christ  is  the  key  to 
Christianity,  and  that,  in  order  to  understand  it,  we 
must  understand  Him.  The  superiority  of  Christianity 
to  Judaism,  which  it  is  his  aim  to  establish,  lies  in  the 
unique  pre-eminence  of  Christ  and  in  the  consequent 
perfection  and  finality  of  His  work.  To  that  as  the 
essential  theme  of  this  Epistle  we  are  introduced  in  its 
opening  sentence.  There  we  have  the  first  of  the 
contrasts  which  the  letter  sets  forth.  Revelation  under 
the  old  dispensation  was  given  fragmentarily  and  in 
a  variety  of  ways,  and  thus  lacked  the  unity  which 
belonged  to  God's  self-disclosure  in  Christ.  Moreover, 
in  the  former  case,  the  agents  of  the  Divine  communi- 
cation had  been  prophets  or,  in  the  case  of  the  Law, 
angels,  in  that  view  being  recalled  a  tradition  of  later 
Judaism  that  Moses  had  received  the  Law  on  Mount 


EPISTLE    TO   THE    HEBREWS     137 

Sinai  through  the  ministry  of  angels.  But  God  had 
given  the  Gospel  through  a  Son — a  Son,  too,  who,  in 
addition  to  being  His  agent  in  the  creation  and  main- 
tenance of  the  universe,  was  "  the  effulgence  of  His  glory 
and  the  very  image  of  His  substance,"  and  had,  in 
virtue  of  His  redeeming  activity,  been  enthroned  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Divine  majesty,  the  angels,  who  at  the 
best  were  servants,  and  not  sons,  being  commanded  to 
do  Him  homage,  and  to  minister  to  such  as  became 
partakers  of  the  Messianic  salvation.  As  was  the 
relative  dignity  of  Christ  and  the  angels,  so  must  aLso 
be  the  relative  worth  of  the  revelations  which  they 
introduced.  And  if  the  injunctions  of  Judaism  were 
enforced  by  Divine  sanctions,  what  possible  escape  from 
punishment  could  there  be,  if  men  rejected  the  great 
salvation  vouchsafed  by  God,  confirmed  by  miracle, 
and  mediated  by  the  Messianic  Son. 

The  next  contrast  is  between  Jesus  and  Moses  as  the 
outstanding  figure  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  man 
to  whom,  according  to  tradition,  the  Law  was  first 
communicated.  Why  was  Jesus  greater  than  Moses 
and  so,  inferentially,  the  Gospel  superior  to  the  Law? 
Because,  though  both  were  alike  faithful  in  God's  house, 
Moses  held  the  inferior  rank  of  a  servant,  whilst  to 
Jesus  alone  belonged  the  dignity  of  a  Son.  Christ  too  is 
He  who  has  built  the  house,  the  writer  having  in  mind 
in  that  assertion  mainly  the  Christian  order  of  things, 


138     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

though  his  sense  of  its  continuity  with  the  Old 
Testament  system  enables  him  to  speak  of  Moses  as 
related  to  the  same  house,  but  in  an  inferior  way.  But 
to  devout  Jews  the  central  element  of  their  religion  was 
its  sacrificial  rites.  These  provided  the  writer  of  this 
letter  with  his  most  elaborate  contrast.  To  think  of  the 
Old  Testament  sacrifices  was  to  be  reminded,  in  the  first 
instance,  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  by  whom  those 
sacrifices  were  offered,  and,  notably,  of  the  high  priest 
who,  especially  on  the  great  Day  of  Atonement, 
summed  up  in  himself,  not  simply  the  whole  priestly 
order,  but  the  entire  Jewish  nation.  Over  against  him 
there  is  set  "  the  high  priest  of  our  confession,  even 
Jesus,"  for  whom  no  adequate  Old  Testament  analogy 
is  found  but  Melchizedek,  the  shadowy  priest-king, 
coming  out  of  the  unknown  and  passing  as  swiftly  into 
it,  to  whom  Abraham  gave  tithes  and  paid  homage  on 
his  return  from  his  defeat  of  the  four  kings.  The 
child  of  mystery,  with  nothing  known  as  to  his  birth  or 
decease,  appearing  just  for  one  moment  upon  the  stage 
of  history,  and  yet  in  that  moment  acknowledged  by 
Abraham  as  his  superior,  Melchizedek,  to  one  schooled 
in  the  Alexandrian  modes  of  exegesis,  seemed  the  pre- 
figurement  of  a  priesthood,  eternally  constituted,  lifted 
beyond  conditions  of  time,  and  as  much  greater  than  that 
embodied  in  Aaron  and  his  successors,  as  Melchizedek 
v/as  greater  than  Abraham  from  whom  Aaron  sprang. 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     139 

Thus  does  the  writer  of  this  Epistle  exhibit  the 
pre-eminence  of  Christ's  person.  His  line  of  argument 
may  seem  inconclusive  to  us,  partly  because  of  the 
curious  and  semi-allegorical  mode  of  exegesis  to  which 
he  resorts.  There  does  not  appear  to  us,  e.g.,  to  be 
any  necessary  relation  of  type  and  anti-type  between 
Melchizedek  and  Christ.  Still,  even  where  we  question 
his  premisses,  we  are  able  to  reach  by  an  independent 
route  the  same  conclusions,  and,  in  passing  judgment 
upon  him,  we  have  to  remember  that  he  was  writing 
to  men  who,  like  the  writer  himself,  regarded  the 
allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
valid  road  to  the  truth.  Even  inspiration  has  to  be 
content  to  take  men  as  they  are,  and  revelation, 
because  it  comes  in  the  first  instance  to  men  of  parti- 
cular traditions  and  culture,  has  to  reflect  those  mental 
idiosyncrasies  in  its  modes  of  expression.  Dismissing 
that  subject  with  this  passing  reference,  we  need  to 
go  back  for  one  moment,  and  gather  up  all  that  this 
Epistle  affirms  concerning  the  person  of  Christ.  The 
three  contrasts  already  referred  to,  set  forth  His  unique 
and  Divine  glory.  But  there  is  another  side  to  the 
picture.  In  one  of  the  exhortations  which,  true  to  his 
practical  aim,  the  author  appends  to  each  of  his  anti- 
theses, he  develops  his  view  of  the  Incarnation.  It  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  are 
the  fulness  and  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  identification  with 


I40  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

humanity  more  clearly  described.  He  who  was  greater 
than  angels,  became  for  a  little  while  lower  than  they, 
that  He  might  submit  to  the  suffering  of  death.  He 
partook  of  flesh  and  blood,  making  Himself  one  in 
all  save  sin  with  the  brethren  whom  He  came  to  save. 
By  the  endurance  of  moral  trial  in  the  shape  of  suffering 
and  temptation  He  acquired  sympathy  and  learned 
obedience,  always  remaining  sinless,  yet  developing 
after  a  human  fashion,  and  in  such  a  way  as  meant 
the  growing  realisation  in  His  nature  of  the  good. 
As  the  "  leader  "  of  our  faith  Christ  is  to  us  the  perfect 
pattern  of  fidelity  to  the  will  of  God.  Not  only  so, 
but  in  the  holy  perfection  of  Christ's  earthly  life  lies 
the  explanation  of  His  exaltation  to  glory  and  of  His 
high-priestly  activity  within  the  veil.  Because  of  the 
fidelity  shown  in  His  submission  to  death  He  has  been 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  so  that  it  may  be  said 
that  what  was  His  by  nature  has  become  His  also  by 
merit;  He  has  won  as  man  what  was  His  as  God. 
In  the  same  way  His  high-priesthood  is  not  an  office 
which  He  has  arrogated  to  Himself,  but  is  one  to 
which  He  has  been  appointed  by  virtue  of  His  inherent 
and  indissoluble  life.  Dignity  of  function  is  determined 
by  quality  of  person.  It  is  because  Jesus  is  "a  Son, 
perfected  for  evermore,"  that  He  has  by  a  Divine  oath 
been  appointed  to  a  priesthood  abiding  and  unchange- 
able. 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     141 

So  from  the  brief  humiliation  of  earth  the  perfected 
Son  passes  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  where,  declared 
heir  of  all  things,  worshipped  by  angels,  and  invested 
with  full  authority  over  the  coming  Messianic  age,  He 
ministers  to  the  salvation  of  all  who  obey  Him.  But 
what  preceded  the  Incarnation  ?  Did  that  event  repre- 
sent the  beginning  of  the  Messiah's  career,  and  had  the 
period  of  humiHation  no  state  of  glory  as  its  background 
as  well  as  its  issue  ?  This  Epistle  may  not  be  so 
explicit  on  that  problem  as  we  could  desire,  but  when 
we  are  told  that  the  Son,  who  is  now  heir  of  all  things, 
was  He  also  by  whom  God  made  and  sustains  the  world,, 
and  when  again,  in  a  quotation  from  the  Psalms,  He  is 
declared  to  have  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,  such 
activity  demands  more  than  a  merely  ideal  pre-existence 
of  Jesus.  It  requires  a  pre-temporal  life  in  which  the 
Son,  even  then  perfectly  reflecting  the  Father's  glory 
and  expressing  His  essence,  shared  in  the  life  of  God. 
and  reposed  in  His  love.  That,  too,  is  the  point  of  the 
comparison  of  Christ  to  Melchizedek,  who,  "having 
neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life,"  is  "made 
like  unto  the  Son  of  God."  Subordination  of  some  sort 
there  must  have  been  in  that  pre-incarnate  state,  or  else 
how  could  it  be  said  of  the  Son  that  "  God,  Thy 
God,  hath  anointed  Thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness"? 
But  this  is  a  point  which  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  simply 
affirms;  he  does   not  linger  to  explain.     What  seems. 


142  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

clear  is  that  there  appears  here  the  same  exalted  view  of 
Jesus  as  existing  before  all  time  and  sharing  eternally  in 
the  nature  and  activities  of  God,  which  we  find  in  the 
Prologue  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  in  the  later  teaching 
of  Paul. 

And  as  is  the  Worker,  so  is  also  His  work.  That 
derives  its  supreme  value  from  the  person  who  achieves 
it.  We  come  to  the  very  heart  of  this  Epistle  when  we 
see  how  the  writer  applies  this  principle  to  the  death  of 
Christ  and  the  subsequent  presentation  of  His  offering 
in  heaven  before  God.  For,  true  to  the  ritual  of  the 
great  Day  of  Atonement,  when  only  the  presentation  of 
the  blood  of  the  victim  in  the  holy  of  holies  completed 
the  sacrifice,  Jesus  also  consummates  the  offering  of 
Himself  only  when  He  appears  in  heaven  for  us.  His 
death  and  subsequent  intercession  represent  one  atoning 
transaction.  Now  to  the  devout  Jew  the  centre  of  the 
legal  system  was  its  sacrifices.  On  that — its  ceremonial 
side — our  author  contemplates  the  Law,  and  from  that 
point  of  view  convicts  it  of  being  unprofitable  and  in- 
effectual. Through  the  essential  externality  of  its 
sacrifices  it  could  "make  nothing  perfect."  It  moved 
in  the  realm  of  shadow  and  symbol.  What  was  needed, 
therefore,  was  a  sacrifice  real,  effectual,  and  final,  as 
opposed  to  a  cultus  which  was  simply  external,  ineffective, 
and  shadowy.  It  is  by  showing  that  Christianity 
answered  that  need  that  the  writer  of  this  letter  steadies 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     143 

the  wavering  faith  of  his  readers.  Put  in  one  brief 
sentence  his  argument  is  this :  Christianity  is  the  final 
religion  because  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  ideal.  To 
establish  that  momentous  truth  required  a  series  of  con- 
trasts in  which  the  new  is  set  over  against  the  old.  To 
begin  with,  the  priests  of  Judaism  were  frail  and  sinful 
men,  needing  themselves,  as  much  as  those  for  whom 
they  acted,  the  atoning  virtue  of  the  sacrifices  which  they 
offered.  Then  their  offerings  were  simply  dumb  animals, 
*'  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  and  the  ashes  of  the 
heifer,"  and  these,  because  they  were  something  exter- 
nal to  the  offerer,  could  never  avail  to  purge  away  his 
sin.  By  their  constant  repetition,  which  itself  was  a 
sign  of  their  ineffectuality,  they  succeeded  in  keeping 
alive  the  sense  of  sin,  but,  so  far  as  the  actual  cleansing 
of  the  conscience  was  concerned,  they  were  but  em- 
blematic, pointing  forward  to  some  sacrifice  yet  to  be 
disclosed,  which  should  accomplish  in  fact  what  they 
only  did  in  symbol.  The  Law  in  its  sacrifices  was  but 
"a  shadow,"  a  dim  outline  "of  the  good  things  to 
come,"  and  so  could  not  make  men  perfect.  Once 
more,  the  Aaronic  priest  offered  in  a  sanctuary  which, 
because  it  was  of  this  world,  was  imperfect,  being  an 
inadequate  attempt  to  realise  the  true  sanctuary  which 
was  in  heaven.  Heaven  to  the  Jew  was  the  home  of 
the  ideal,  in  the  sense,  however,  that  there  the  ideal 
existed  not  simply  in  thought  but  in  fact.     The  concep- 


144     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

tion,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  28),  was  applied  to  many 
things,  and,  among  them,  to  the  Temple,  so  that  it  was 
after  the  pattern  of  the  heavenly  sanctuary  shown  to 
him  on  the  mount  that  Moses  was  said  to  have  formed 
the  tabernacle,  thus  providing  for  the  heavenly  reality 
an  imperfect,  because  earthly,  counterpart.  Thus  did 
defect  stain  the  system  of  legal  sacrifice.  Even  the 
Old  Testament  itself  admitted  this,  when  it  spoke 
through  Jeremiah  of  the  new  covenant  which  God 
would  establish  with  Israel,  thus  branding  as  obsolescent 
that  which  had  been  originally  constituted  by  sacrifices 
at  Sinai.  Christianity  brought  in  a  new  and  a  better 
order.  Its  high  priest,  though  chosen  from  among  men, 
was  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners,  and 
so  had  no  need  to  make  atonement  for  Himself.  And 
this  ideal  priest  had  an  ideal  sacrifice,  for  the  offering 
which  He  brought  was  not  some  brute  beast,  but  His 
own  spotless  and  holy  life  offered  up  in  perfect  obedience 
to  Him  whose  will  it  was  His  delight  to  do.  Because 
the  offering  was  ideal,  it  accomplished  a  real  deliverance 
from  sin,  effecting  an  inward  and  not  merely  a  ritual 
cleansing.  Moreover,  since  it  was  through  "an  eternal 
spirit"  that  Jesus  thus  offered  Himself  to  God  (ix.  14), 
i,e.  in  obedience  to  a  spiritual  principle  which,  though 
it  found  concrete  exhibition  in  time,  was  itself  timeless 
in  the  sense  that  sacrificial  love  was  eternal  in  the  heart 
of  the  Redeemer,  His  work  became  valid  for  all  time, 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     145 

not  simply  having  prospective  worth,  but  availing  also 
for  those  who  had  transgressed  under  the  first  covenant. 
Perfect  thus  in  scope  and  quality,  it  required  no  repeti- 
tion. Finally,  Christ's  offering  was  presented  in  the 
ideal  sanctuary,  for  it  was  in  heaven  that  He,  bearing 
His  own  blood,  appeared  before  God.  And  having 
entered  that  home  of  reality,  there  He  abides.  Unlike 
the  Aaronic  priest,  whose  entrance  into  the  holy  place 
once  a  year  spoke  more  of  exclusion  from  God  than  of 
access  to  Him,  Jesus  by  His  continued  tarrying  in  the 
heavenly  sanctuary  declares  that  God  has  become 
accessible  to  sinful  men,  and  that  "a  new  and  living 
way  "  into  His  presence  is  now  open. 

It  is  in  this  access  to  God  and  life  in  His  presence 
that,  according  to  the  thought  of  this  Epistle,  man's 
salvation  consists.  We  are  not  furnished  with  anything 
deserving  to  be  called  a  theory  of  atonement.  Beyond 
an  appeal  to  the  analogy  of  the  Law,  where,  "  apart  from 
shedding  of  blood,  there  is  no  remission,"  our  author's 
main  plea  for  the  necessity  of  Christ's  death  turns  upon 
a  verbal  refinement.  Having  argued  that  Jesus  has 
established  a  new  covenant  between  man  and  God,  he 
proceeds,  true  to  Alexandrian  modes  of  exegesis,  to 
take  the  Greek  word  for  "  covenant "  in  its  secondary 
sense  of  "will"  or  "testament,"  arguing  thence  that, 
since  a  will  can  only  become  operative  on  the  death  of 


146     NEW   TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

the  testator,  the  new  "  testament "  associated  with  Christ 
could  only  become  effective  through  His  death.  This 
mode  of  reasoning  will  carry  less  weight  with  us  than  it 
did  with  Jewish  Christians  of  the  first  century.  In  any 
case,  that  particular  appeal  is  only  incidental  to  the  main 
argument  of  the  Epistle.  What  is  fundamental  is  the 
assumption,  because  to  a  Jew  it  would  be  axiomatic, 
that  sacrifice  is  necessary  for  the  removal  of  sin.  Build- 
ing upon  that  belief,  common  to  him  and  his  readers,  the 
author  claims  that  Cliristiaiiity  is  the  absolute  religion, 
inasmuch  as  through  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  it  effects  in 
reality  and  once  for  all  that  release  from  sin  which  the 
legal  sacrifices  only  hinted  at  in  prophecy  and  symbol. 
Moreover,  he  keeps  to  ritual  analogies  even  in  defining 
the  nature  of  salvation,  for,  unlike  Paul,  who,  true  to 
his  strong  ethical  interest,  describes  salvation  as  "  justi- 
fication," he  uses  consistently  the  terms  "perfect," 
"  cleanse,"  "  sanctify,"  to  define  the  transformation  of 
the  heart  accomplished  by  Christ.  What  is  evident,  too, 
is  that  the  vital  element  in  Christ's  offering  was  the 
perfect  surrender  of  His  will  in  holy  obedience  to  God. 
In  ways  for  which  we  have  analogy  rather  than  proof, 
that  act  of  the  Redeemer  avails  for  His  brethren, 
delivering  them  from  the  fear  of  death,  and  releasing 
them  from  that  "  conscience  of  sins  "  which  barred  their 
entrance  into  the  Divine  fellowship.     Now  where  Christ, 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     147 

our  "  forerunner,"  has  gone,  we  may  follow.  Into  the 
**  Sabbath- rest,"  unrealised  in  the  occupation  of  Canaan, 
Christ,  the  new  Joshua,  has  Himself  entered,  and  all 
who  believe  share  even  now  in  its  possession. 

That  brings  us  to  another  interesting  feature  of  this 
Epistle.  From  certain  phrases  it  might  seem  that  the 
realisation  of  salvation  is  assigned  to  the  future,  for 
Christians  are  described  as  being  brought  to  a  "  glory  " 
beyond  the  shores  of  time,  the  possession  of  which  is 
"a  better  hope"  "or  the  hope  set  before  us."  It  is 
also  "unto  salvation,"  i.e.  unto  the  perfecting  of 
Christian  experience,  that  Jesus  is  expected  once  again 
to  emerge  from  the  unseen.  This  view  is  traceable  to 
that  Alexandrian  philosophy  of  the  author  which  held 
that  in  the  supersensible  we  must  find  the  real,  the 
material  and  sensible  being  but  shadowy  emblems  of 
it.  The  Christian  pilgrims,  therefore,  "desire  a  better 
country,  that  is,  a  heavenly  " ;  they  seek,  as  the  fatherland 
of  the  soul,  "  the  city  which  hath  the  foundations,"  and 
"which  is  to  come."  But  that  is  only  one  side  of  our 
author's  conception.  Having  declared  (x.  39),  confident 
in  the  strength  of  his  previous  argument,  that  he  and  his 
readers  are  not  of  them  that  shrink  back  into  perdition, 
but  are  of  them  that  have  faith  "  unto  the  saving  of  the 
soul,"  i.e,  unto  the  perfect  realisation  of  salvation,  he 
proceeds  to  show  that  "  faith  is  the  title-deeds  "  (for  so 


148     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

we  must  translate)  "  of  things  hoped  for,  the  conviction 
of  things  not  seen."  It  is  that  activity  of  the  soul  which 
guarantees  the  reality  of  the  unseen  and  spiritual,  and 
already  in  some  sense  seals  them  as  ours.  It  was  by 
such  a  faith  that  the  Old  Testament  worthies  lived,  and 
so  ever  reached  out  to  more  than  they  had  yet  grasped ; 
nay,  of  such  a  faith  Jesus  Himself  was  the  file-leader,  for 
was  it  not  "  for  the  joy  set  before  Him  "  that  He  "  endured 
the  cross,  despising  shame  "  ?  Unlike  the  Pauline  con- 
ception, in  which  faith  is  strongly  ethical,  representing 
the  devout  movement  Christwards  of  a  man's  whole 
personality,  faith  in  this  Epistle  is  reposed  in  God,  and 
is  that  intellectual  forth-reaching — akin  to  hope,  save 
that  the  grasp  of  faith  is  more  assured, — by  which  the 
unrealised  is  seized  and  in  measure  already  made  our 
own.  For  that  reason  salvation  becomes  an  experience 
as  well  as  an  expectation.  Christians  have  already 
tasted  "  the  powers  of  the  age  to  come  " ;  the  anchor  of 
the  soul,  "taking  sure  grip  of  that  which  is  within  the 
vail,"  keeps  the  believer  even  now  secure  and  safe. 

Such  is,  in  rough  outline,  the  lofty  argument  of  this 
Epistle.  Bold  the  message  undoubtedly  was,  so  that 
the  writer  stands  in  some  doubt  as  to  how  it  will  be 
received  by  his  readers.  Destructive  it  was  bound  to 
be,  for  men  who  were  turning  longing  eyes  back  to 
Judaism   could  not  in  their  own    interests  be  allowed 


EPISTLE    TO   THE    HEBREWS     149 

to  entertain  any  illusion  as  to  its  inadequacy  and  its  con- 
sequent supersession.  But  the  great  glory  of  the  Epistle 
is  its  constructive  side,  the  sustained  argument  by  which 
Christ  is  assigned  the  supreme  place  among  the  religious 
leaders  of  mankind,  and  His  sacrificial  work  becomes 
God's  final  word  concerning  sin  and  salvation.  The 
exposition  of  this  truth  was  the  surest  defence  against 
apostasy.  "We  needs  must  love  the  highest,  when  we 
see  it,"  and,  loving  it,  must  hold  to  it.  Elements  in  the 
liistorical  situation,  e.g.  the  delayed  return  of  Christ,  and 
the  present  sufferings  of  his  readers,  our  author  meets 
by  affirming  his  own  conviction  that  the  return  was 
imminent  (x.  25),  and  by  teaching  that  suffering  was  but 
the  discipline  imposed  by  God  upon  His  sons  for  their 
good,  on  which  grounds  he  bids  those  to  whom  he 
speaks  abandon  their  lethargy  and  despair.  But  his 
main  appeal  is  that  they,  instead  of  reverting  to  Judaism, 
should  brace  themselves  to  a  definite  breach  with  it. 
Why  go  back  to  that  which  was  outworn  and  super- 
seded? Such  drawing  back  was  "unto  perdition,"  for 
Judaism  had  no  power  of  redemption,  and,  if  men  who 
had  already  felt  the  renewing  power  of  Christianity 
turned  from  it  under  the  vain  delusion  that  Judaism  was 
better,  what  hope  could  there  be  for  them,  since  they 
had  been  too  blind  to  know  the  best  when  they  had  it  ? 
Such  trampling  under  foot  of  the  blood  of  the  covenant 


I50  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

meant  doing  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace,  and  falling 
into  the  avenging  hands  of  the  living  God. 

Instead  of  a  reversion  that  was  futile  and  perilous, 
the  duty  of  the  hour  was  to  go  forward  by  realising  the 
finality  and  independence  of  the  Christian  faith.  In 
a  bold  figure,  suggested  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  had 
suffered  crucifixion  outside  the  gate  of  Jerusalem,  this 
writer  bids  his  readers  go  forth  unto  Christ  without 
the  camp,  i.e.  to  break  finally  with  Judaism,  sharing 
cheerfully  with  their  Lord  the  reproach  which  such 
a  breach  might  entail.  The  two  faiths  were  separate 
and  incompatible.  "We  have  an  altar,"  he  says, 
"whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the 
tabernacle."  Sinai,  fenced  from  the  approach  of  man 
or  beast,  and  shrouded  in  darkness  and  tempest,  save 
as  it  was  lighted  by  the  dread  glory  of  the  Divine 
theophany — that  was  the  symbol  of  the  awe  and  exclusion 
which  belonged  to  Judaism.  But  over  against  Sinai  there 
stood  Mount  Zion,  the  symbol  of  the  Christian  order. 
To  that,  not  fenced  by  any  awful  barrier,  the  readers  of 
this  Epistle  had  found  access,  and  in  reaching  it  had 
come  to  God  and  all  the  holy  fellowships  which 
centred  there,  and  to  the  new  covenant  sealed  by  the 
perfect  sacrifice  of  Christ.  There  it  was  their  duty 
to  abide.  With  sacrifices,  save  those  of  praise  to  God 
and  loving  service  to  their  fellows,  they  had  finished. 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS     151 

Their  spiritual  well-being  was  bound  up  with  the  new 
faith,  of  which,  through  their  defective  comprehension 
of  it,  they  had  all  too  feeble  a  grasp.  So  to  these 
wavering  Christians  came  this  "word  of  exhortation," 
bidding  them  realise  the  true  inwardness  of  their  faith, 
and  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  with  which  it  had  set  them 
free. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER 

The  opening  salutation  of  this  letter  ascribes  its 
authorship  to  the  apostle  Peter.  To  the  acceptance 
of  that  view,  well  supported  as  it  is  by  tradition, 
there  is  no  insuperable  objection.  The  Greek  in  which 
the  Epistle  is  written  may  be  somewhat  purer  than  one 
would  expect  from  a  Galilean  fisherman,  but  a  credible 
explanation  of  this  is  that  Silvanus  (or  Silas),  who 
conveyed  the  letter  to  the  churches  addressed  in  it, 
had  also  something  to  do  with  its  literary  form.  A 
more  serious  objection  is  the  debt  which  it  owes,  in 
phraseology  and  ideas,  to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  notably 
to  those  to  the  Romans  and  Ephesians.  But  this  may 
be  perfectly  compatible  with  Petrine  authorship.  If 
this  letter  was  written  at  Rome, — a  city  intimately 
connected  with  the  two  Pauline  Epistles  referred  to, 
since  it  was  the  destination  of  the  one  and  the  source  of 
the  other, — and  if  the  date  of  its  composition  was  after 

the  death    of   Paul,   but   before  the  full   violence  of 

152 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF   PETER     153 

Nero's  persecution  had  burst  upon  the  Roman  Christians, 
Peter's  affinity  with  Pauline  ideas  becomes  credible. 
For  if  GaUlee  and  Syria,  and  perhaps  even  Asia  Minor, 
had  been  Peter's  special  sphere,  he  had  been  concerned 
with  Christian  communities  which,  while  consisting 
largely  of  Jews,  contained  also  a  growing  admixture  of 
Gentile  converts,  the  problem  of  whose  relation  to 
their  Jewish  brethren  was  thus  being  happily  solved. 
Such  a  situation,  coupled  with  the  success  of  the 
Pauline  mission,  could  not  fail  to  have  a  liberalising 
effect  upon  Peter,  whose  mind,  largely  practical  in  its 
bent,  was  always  sensitive  to  the  logic  of  events.  He 
was  no  prejudiced  doctrinaire,  but  a  man  whose  in- 
stincts, left  to  themselves,  were  invariably  on  the  side 
of  liberalism.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  also  that  the 
universalism  present  in  the  spirit  and  teaching  of  Jesus 
must  have  left  its  mark  upon  so  impressionable  a  disciple 
as  Peter;  indeed  this  letter  exhales  the  influence  of 
Christ's  earthly  ministry.  So,  as  by  a  natural  affinity, 
Peter  with  the  lapse  of  time  grew  towards  Paul, 
absorbing  with  minor  modifications  his  point  of  view,  and 
becoming  a  man  to  whose  voice  the  mixed  churches 
of  the  Dispersion  were  sure  at  a  time  of  crisis  to  listen 
with  respect. 

For  though  this  Epistle  is  formally  addressed  to  "the 
elect  who  are  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion,"  the  letter 
itself  is  evidence  that  the  churches  so  addressed  cannot 


154     NEW    TESTAMENT   TEACHERS 

have  consisted  simply  of  Jewish  Christians.  Else  how- 
could  the  apostle  have  said  of  his  readers  that  they  *'  in 
time  past  were  no  people  "  (ii.  lo),  that  they  had  formerly 
"wrought  the  desire  of  the  Gentiles,"  walking  in  sins 
which  were  characteristic  of  the  heathen  (iv.  3),  and 
that  they  had  been  redeemed  from  the  *'  vain  manner  of 
life"  handed  down  by  their  fathers  (i.  18)?  Christians 
who  had  once  been  heathen  must  be  in  mind  in  such 
sayings,  and  if,  therefore,  churches  containing  this 
element  are  referred  to  by  Peter  in  terms  which  only 
seem  appropriate  to  God's  ancient  people,  it  is  because 
the  apostle  has  appropriated  the  Pauline  idea  that  the 
Christian  Church  had  become  the  true  Israel,  because 
it  had  given  welcome  to  God's  Messiah,  whilst  the  un- 
believing Jews  by  rejecting  Him  had  excluded  them- 
selves from  the  chosen  people  and  the  covenant  of 
grace.  The  wild  olive  grafted  upon  the  ancient 
stock  had  become  one  with  it  in  privilege  and 
nature. 

The  place  of  authority  over  mixed  churches  of  this 
type  may,  on  personal  grounds  and  because  of  his  broad 
sympathies,  have  been  tacitly  assigned  to  Peter  after  the 
death  of  Paul.  For  though  it  is  generally  agreed  that 
"  Babylon,"  from  which  this  letter  purports  to  be  written 
(v.  13),  is  a  veiled  name  for  Rome,  hinting  at  the  bitter 
hostility  which  that  city  had  already  shown  to  God's 
new  Israel,  not  only  does  Peter  make  no  reference  to 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER     155 

Paul,  but  some  at  least  of  the  churches  which  he  ad- 
dresses here,  e.g.  those  in  Galatia  and  Asia,  came  so 
admittedly  within  Paul's  sphere  of  authority  that,  whilst 
he  was  alive,  no  other  apostle  would  have  ventured  to 
claim  their  ear.  We  may  assume,  therefore,  that  Paul 
was  dead  when  this  letter  was  written.  It  addressed 
itself  to  a  disturbed  situation.  Persecution  had  fallen 
upon  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor.  A  "  fiery  trial," 
testing  their  endurance  and  loyalty,  had  come  upon 
them.  Not  that  they  stood  alone  in  this,  for  Peter 
reminds  his  readers  (v.  9)  that  the  same  sufferings  were 
being  accomplished  in  the  Christian  brotherhood  gener- 
ally, though  certain  circumstances  may  have  made  a 
steadying  message  to  those  Asiatic  Christians  specially 
befitting.  Their  persecution  came  in  part  from  Jews 
who,  emboldened,  doubtless,  by  their  success  in  com- 
passing the  death  of  Paul,  grew  more  venomous  in 
their  attitude  to  the  Christian  faith.  Calumny,  verbal 
abuse,  scorn  of  the  Christian  name  which  they  bore — 
these  were  elements  in  the  social  persecution  which 
these  Christians  endured  (iii.  16,  iv.  4,  14).  Doubtless 
some  of  them  in  addition  were  haled  before  the  local 
magistrates,  who,  quick  to  follow  the  unsympathetic 
attitude  towards  Christians  already  manifest  in  Rome, 
looked  with  prejudiced  eyes  upon  men  who,  whether 
guilty  or  not  of  that  with  which  they  were  charged, 
belonged  to  a  sect  which,  by  its  very  aloofness  from  the 


156     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

rest  of  the  community,  seemed  disruptive  and  anti-social 
in  its  spirit. 

Such  was  the  situation — one  that,  notwithstanding 
opposing  critics  like  Pfleiderer  and  Harnack,  is  com- 
patible with  the  Petrine  authorship  of  this  Epistle  and 
with  its  being  dated  about  the  year  a.d.  65.  In  sub- 
stance the  letter  consists  of  counsels  to  the  persecuted.  It 
at  once  reminds  of  privilege  and  exhorts  to  duty.  So 
far  as  present  experience  is  concerned,  it  was  great  in 
its  realisations  but  greater  still  in  its  hopes.  There  was 
the  Messianic  salvation,  the  goal  of  the  Christian's  faith, 
trembling  on  the  horizon,  "  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the 
last  time."  Unto  '*  a  living  hope "  of  participation 
therein,  due,  as  none  knew  better  than  Peter  himself,  to 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  Christians  had  been  begotten, 
and  so,  loving  a  Christ  whom  they  did  not  yet  see,  and 
undaunted  even  by  their  manifold  trials,  they  were  able 
even  now  to  "rejoice  greatly  with  joy  unspeakable 
and  full  of  glory,"  gladly  anticipating  a  Divine  consum- 
mation which  had  been  the  theme  of  prophets  and  was 
the  wonder  of  angels. 

But  privilege  has  its  counterpart  in  duty-  One  great 
note  of  this  Epistle  is  its  emphasis  on  conduct.  Holiness 
in  all  manner  of  life  in  imitation  of  the  holy  perfection 
of  God,  a  wholesome  fear,  during  their  time  of  sojourn- 
ing, of  the  Heavenly  Father  who  had  redeemed  them  at 
such  cost,  the  cultivation  of  sincere  love  of  the  brethren 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER     157 

— these  were  graces  to  which  Peter  exhorts  his  readers. 
He  will  not  even  let  them  take  their  great  hope  lightly, 
for  he  bids  them  make  conscious  effort,  "girding  up  the 
loins  "  of  their  mind,  to  keep  it  steadfastly  before  them. 
What  he  longs  for  is  a  Church  which,  with  "all  wicked- 
ness and  all  guile  and  hypocrisies  and  envy  and  all 
evil  speakings"  removed  from  it,  is  built  up,  through 
the  moral  development  of  its  individual  members,  into 
a  spiritual  house,  each  Christian  a  living  stone  therein, 
or  is  constituted  a  holy  priesthood,  offering  acceptable, 
because  spiritual,  sacrifices,  the  Church  thus  becoming 
the  true  people  of  God,  the  peculiar  property  and  glory 
of  Him  by  whom  it  has  been  redeemed  and  framed. 
Nor  is  the  apostle  content  merely  with  general  exhorta- 
tions to  goodness.  He  pursues  his  readers  into  the 
various  relationships  of  their  life,  and  there  bids  them 
exhibit  the  Christian  ideal.  Before  the  heathen  Chris- 
tians were  to  lead  a  pure  and  consistent  life,  so  they 
might  silence  slander  and  even  gain  converts  (ii.  12). 
To  the  civil  power  in  its  various  forms  they  were  to 
show  themselves  loyal,  recognising  that  civil  authority 
had  Divine  sanctions,  and  was  essential  for  the  stability 
of  law  and  order.  Here,  again,  "by  well-doing"  they 
might  vindicate  themselves  from  the  aspersions  of  men 
who  in  ignorance  believed  evil  of  them.  Household 
servants,  most  of  whom  would  be  slaves,  were  bidden 
to  yield  a  deferential  obedience  to  their  masters — not 


158     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

only  to  such  as  were  good  and  considerate,  but  also  to 
the  cruel  and  unjust.  The  Divine  approval  would  rest 
upon  such  servants  as,  from  a  sense  of  religious  duty, 
submitted  patiently  to  unmerited  wrong.  It  was  only 
when  suffering  was  undeserved  that  there  was  any  credit 
in  patient  submission  to  it,  and  such  suffering  was  part 
of  the  Christian's  fated  lot,  for  therein  he  was  but  like 
his  Master,  who,  not  only  in  the  fact  of  suffering,  but  in 
its  unmeritedness  and  the  meek  and  unreviling  spirit  in 
which  He  bore  it,  left  an  example  for  His  followers  to 
imitate.  Yet  again,  domestic  relationships  were  to  be 
hallowed  by  the  Christian  spirit.  Wives  are  exhorted 
to  act  with  such  submission  and  godliness  towards  their 
husbands  that  any  of  the  latter  who  are  heathen  may 
be  won  to  faith  in  Christ.  The  ornament  of  "a  meek 
and  quiet  spirit "  was  to  be  more  sought  after  by  a  wife 
than  attractiveness  of  dress  and  outward  finery.  The 
husband,  too,  was  to  be  considerate  in  recognising  the 
claims  of  his  weaker  companion,  and  in  so  ordering 
their  mutual  relations  that,  when  both  persons  were 
Christians,  no  obstacle  might  be  placed  in  the  path  of 
that  religious  development  to  which  husband  and  wife 
were  equally  called.  Such  is  Peter's  detailed  exposition 
of  Christian  duty. 

The  stress  laid  therein  upon  goodness  in  act  and 
disposition  appears  also  in  Peter's  admonitions  to  his 
readers  in  reference  to  their  sufferings.  His  main  concern 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER     159 

is  that  no  Christian  shall  do  anything  to  deserve  them. 
"  Let  none  of  you,"  he  says,  *'  sufifer  as  a  murderer,  or 
a  thief,  or  an  evildoer,  or  as  a  meddler  in  other  men's 
matters"  (iv.  15).  "It  is  better,"  he  says  again,  "if 
the  will  of  God  should  so  will,  that  ye  suffer  for  well- 
doing than  for  evil-doing  "  (iii.  17).  Prejudice  accounted 
in  part  for  the  sufferings  which  these  Asian  Christians 
endured,  and  that  prejudice  could  best  be  dispelled  by 
the  complete  renunciation  of  all  heathen  vices,  and  by 
the  faithful  performance,  under  a  sense  of  religious 
obligation,  of  all  social  duty.  The  apostle  goes  so  far 
as  to  affirm  that  a  man  living  in  that  spirit  will,  under 
normal  conditions,  remain  unmolested.  "  Who  is  he 
that  will  harm  you,  if  ye  be  zealous  of  that  which  is 
good?"  (iii.  13).  Nevertheless  there  was  the  natural 
antipathy  of  the  world  to  goodness  to  be  reckoned  with, 
and  hence  there  was  the  possibility  of  persecution  for 
righteousness'  sake.  But  such  persecution  was  blessed, 
though  obviously  everything  depended  upon  its  un- 
meritedness  and  upon  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  borne. 
If  it  was  because  of  the  name  of  Christian  which  they 
bore  that  men  were  called  to  suffer,  they  might  glory  in  the 
name  and  rejoice  in  the  suffering,  for  thereby  they  came 
into  true  fellowship  with  Christ.  It  is  here  that  we 
touch  the  most  interesting  feature  in  Peter's  doctrine  of 
suffering.  The  claim  has  been  made  that  Peter,  had 
he  really  been  the  author  of  this  Epistle,  would,  with 


i6o     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

his  non-theological  temper,  have  said  little  about  the 
death  of  Jesus  in  recalling  the  earthly  ministry.  But 
such  a  view,  besides  forgetting  the  significance  which, 
even  to  a  disciple  like  Peter,  the  death  of  Christ  had 
come  to  assume,  ignores  the  practical  situation  with 
which  in  this  letter  he  was  seeking  to  deal.  He  was 
writing  to  men  who  were  suffering,  and  what  was  more 
natural,  therefore,  than  that,  in  heartening  them,  he 
should  recall  how  their  Master  also  had  suffered  ?  The 
path  which  they  were  treading  had  been  pressed  before 
by  His  bleeding  feet.  And  what  did  this  fellowship 
with  Christ  in  suffering  mean  ?  It  meant,  first  of  all, 
cessation  from  sin,  because  "he  that  suffered  in  the 
flesh  hath  ceased  from  sin  "  (iv.  i).  The  idea  there  ex- 
pressed is  somewhat  obscure,  the  sense  in  which  "  flesh  " 
is  used  being  a  matter  of  dispute.  What  seems  clear, 
however,  is  that  it  does  not  stand,  as  in  Paul's  teaching, 
for  the  whole  principle  of  evil  in  man,  but  recalls  more 
particularly  man's  bodily  nature,  and  the  passions  and 
incitements  to  evil  which  are  incident  to  existence  therein. 
Peter  tells  us  that  "  Christ  suffered  in  the  flesh  "  (iv.  i), 
i.e.  in  His  earthly  life  He  endured  self-denial  and  priva- 
tion and  suffering,  because  these  were  inseparable  from 
the  recoil  from  sin  and  the  steadfast  pursuit  of  righteous- 
ness. To  natures  such  as  ours  pain  is  bound  up  with 
moral  achievement.  No  pains,  no  gains!  But  he  who 
will  suffer  rather  than  sin  has  reached  such  heights  of 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER      i6i 

conquest  over  sin  that  he  has  virtually  snapped  the  con- 
nection between  it  and  him  ;  sin  has  become  a  subjected 
thing,  and  he  has  **  ceased  from  "  it.  May  we  not  inter- 
pret in  this  way  Peter's  reference  to  Christ  suffering  in 
the  flesh  ?  When,  therefore,  he  bids  us  arm  ourselves 
with  "the  same  mind,"  i.e.  face  our  sufferings  with  the 
stern  resolve  that  we  will  endure  anything  rather  than 
commit  wrong,  he  tells  us  that  thus  we  too  by  God's 
grace  shall  find  the  tyranny  of  sin  within  us  broken, 
and  the  soul  led  forth  into  the  Hbert>^  of  the  sons  of 
God. 

One  other  assurance  the  apostle  gives  his  readers  as 
an  anodyne  for  their  pain,  and  that  is  the  brevity  of 
its  duration.  "  The  end  of  all  things,''  he  says,  "  is  at 
hand."  If  the  devil,  their  adversary,  seemed  unwontedly 
active,  prowling  like  a  lion  ravening  for  its  prey  (v.  8), 
their  resistance  of  him,  though  steadfast,  would  not 
need  to  be  prolonged.  Now  was  "his  hour  and  the 
power  of  darkness."  But  after  Christ's  followers  had 
sufifered  "a  little  while,"  the  eternal  glory  unto  which 
they  had  been  called  in  Him  would  be  revealed  (v.  lo), 
and  at  Christ's  manifestation  all  His  faithful  ones 
would  receive  the  unfading  crown.  Thus  were  the 
very  clouds  fringed  with  the  radiance  of  the  Christian 
hope. 

So  far  as  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  generally  are 

L 


i62  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

concerned,  the  teaching  of  this  Epistle  is  incidental  and 
fragmentary.  The  new  life  in  man  is  produced  by  "  the 
word  of  God,"  />.  by  the  message  of  God's  grace 
proclaimed  to  men  in  the  Gospel.  The  crown  of  this 
message  was  evidently  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  for  Peter 
speaks  of  it  as  begetting  "  a  living  hope,"  and  making 
it  possible  for  men  to  repose  "  faith  and  hope  in  God  " 
(i.  3,  2i).  Faith,  which  in  this  Epistle  is  closely  akin 
to  hope,  has  God,  and  not  Christ,  as  its  object.  The 
redeeming  work  of  Christ,  whilst  a  transaction  in  time, 
was  the  unveiling  of  an  eternal  purpose  of  God,  so  that 
the  Lamb  slain  "was  foreknown  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  but  was  manifested  at  the  end  of  the 
times"  (i.  20).  Such  testimony,  too,  as  the  prophets 
gave  beforehand  to  the  sufferings  and  glory  of  Christ 
was  due  to  the  working  in  them  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
(i.  11),  i.e.  either,  as  Dr.  Hort  translates,  "the  Spirit 
of  Messiah,"  or  "  the  Spirit  of  which  Christ  is  and  was 
the  bestower."  The  language  of  these  passages  is  not 
absolutely  decisive,  but  many  exegetes  see  in  it  an 
assertion  by  Peter  of  a  real,  and  not  merely  an  ideal, 
pre-existence  of  Jesus.  But  of  all  the  incidental 
teachings  of  this  Epistle,  the  most  interesting,  if  also 
the  most  perplexing,  is  that  which  refers  to  our  Lord 
preaching  to  the  "  spirits  in  prison  "  and  to  "the  dead  " 
(iii.   18-20,  iv.    6).      These  sayings  have  provoked  a 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER     163 

discussion  too  lengthy  even  for  summary  here.  One 
view  regards  **  the  spirits  in  prison "  as  the  fallen 
angels  of  Gen.  vi.  2,  who  for  their  wrong-doing  were 
cast  down  to  hell  (II.  Pet.  ii.  4),  and  to  whom,  after  His 
death,  Christ  went  and  proclaimed  judgment.  But 
surely  the  contrast  iniii.  20,  between  "the  disobedient" 
and  the  eight  souls  that  were  saved  demands  that  the 
former  shall  belong  to  the  same — i.e.  the  human — 
order,  and  shall  refer,  therefore,  to  the  men  who 
disregarded  the  warnings  of  Noah.  Accepting  that 
view,  it  is  still  maintained  that  "  the  spirits  in  prison  " 
and  "  the  dead  "  are  those  who  are  now  dead,  but  who 
when  alive,  heard  Christ  "  in  the  Spirit  "  preaching  vicari- 
ously to  them  through  the  lips  of  Noah.  It  is  enough  to 
say  that  this  exegesis  is  so  unnatural,  and  so  strains  the 
force  of  the  language,  that  only  the  wish  to  avoid  an 
unwelcome  dogma  can  have  suggested  it.  On  the 
whole  the  interpretation  that  seems  necessary  is  that 
Christ  ''in  the  spirit,"  i.e.  in  that  disembodied  state 
which  was  His  in  the  interval  between  His  death  and 
resurrection,  went  and  preached  in  the  unseen  world  to 
the  sinful  and  disembodied  dead,  the  wicked  who 
perished  at  the  deluge  not  being  His  sole  hearers,  but 
being  mentioned  by  Peter  as  typical,  partly  because 
their  wickedness  was  so  extreme,  and  partly  also  because 
the  reference  to  baptism  (iii.  21)  which  he  already  had 


i64     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

in  his  mind,  called  up  by  anticipatory  analogy  the  Flood 
and  the  sinners  of  that  age.  As  to  the  purpose  of  this 
preaching  to  "  the  dead,"  it  is  said  to  be  "that  they 
might  be  judged  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live 
according  to  God  in  the  spirit."  The  meaning  of  this 
statement  only  becomes  clear  in  the  light  of  its  context. 
Peter,  anticipating  the  speedy  return  of  Christ,  sees  the 
near  approach  of  the  judgment  associated  therewith. 
Christ  stands  "  ready  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead." 
But  a  common  judgment  surely,  if  it  is  to  be  equitable, 
implies  common  opportunities  and  privileges ;  yet  how 
could  men,  now  dead,  belonging  to  bygone  and  pre- 
Christian  times,  justly  sustain  the  same  judgment  as  the 
living  to  whom  the  Gospel  had  been  proclaimed  ?  The 
apostle's  answer  is  that  privilege  has  been  equalised. 
The  disembodied  and  sinful  dead  have  had  the  Gospel 
preached  to  them  by  Christ  Himself,  and  the  object  of 
His  preaching  has  been  that  "they  might  be  judged 
according  to  men  in  the  flesh,"  i.e.  might  justly  be 
submitted  to  the  same  standard  of  judgment  as  was 
imposed  upon  men  still  alive,  but  might  "  live  according 
to  God  in  the  spirit,"  i.e.  even  in  their  disembodied 
condition  might  reach  out  to  realise  the  new  life  which 
was  God's  gift  in  Christ.  Whence  this  tradition  of 
Christ's  "descent  into  Hades"  was  derived,  and  how 
far  it  answers  to  fact,  will  be  matters  of  dispute.     But 


FIRST    EPISTLE    OF    PETER      165 

the  principles  that  shine  out  in  Peter's  application  of  it, 
viz.  that  the  redemption  brought  by  Christ  avails  for 
all  worlds  and  times,  and  that  the  judgment  which  He 
will  direct,  will  observe  an  equitable  correspondence 
between  demand  and  privilege,  are  such  as  find  ready 
approval  in  the  Christian  mind  and  conscience. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE   EPISTLES   OF  JUDE  AND 
SECOND   PETER 

There  is  not  only  convenience  in  discussing  these  two 
Epistles  together,  but,  apart  from  their  brevity,  justi- 
fication for  so  doing.  Both  had  difficulty  in  gaining 
admission  into  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
both,  as  we  shall  see,  are  akin  in  their  teaching.  Indeed 
the  resemblance  is  so  marked  in  both  phrasing  and 
ideas  that  the  conclusion  of  criticism  is  that  one  of 
these  Epistles  has  been  used  in  the  composition  of  the 
other.  On  which  side,  then,  was  the  borrowing?  Is 
Second  Peter  an  expansion  of  Jude  ?  or  Jude  an  abbrevi- 
ation of  Second  Peter  ?  The  former  view  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred on  various  grounds,  e.g.  that  the  construction  of 
Jude  from  Second  Peter  is  a  literary  feat  too  difficult  to 
be  credible;  that  certain  obscurities  in  Second  Peter, 
the  reason  for  whose  existence  is  intelligible  to  criticism, 
are  only  cleared  up  when  the  parallel  passage  in  Jude 
is  consulted.     But  if  Jude*s  Epistle  has  priority,  other 

i66 


JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER  167 

conclusions  follow.  It  is  impossible  to  date  that  Epistle 
within  the  traditional  lifetime  of  Peter,  for,  quite  apart 
from  the  general  situation,  which  Jude  deals  with,  being 
more  suited  to  a  later  date,  he  speaks  of  the  apostles  as 
a  collective  body  and  as  belonging  to  the  past,  whilst 
"the  last  time"  of  which  they  had  spoken,  with  the 
false  teachers  who  were  to  characterise  it,  had  come 
(vers.  17,  18).  Jude's  short  letter  cannot,  therefore,  have 
been  composed  earlier  than  a.d.  75  ;  some  critics  relegate 
it  even  to  the  second  century.  But  that  means  that 
another  Epistle  dependent  upon  it  must  have  been  later 
still,  and  hence  that  Second  Peter,  though  it  was  clearly 
sent  forth  in  Peter's  name,  came  from  some  other  pen. 
On  other  grounds  this  view  is  justified.  We  may  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  Second  Peter  is  the  work  of  some 
anonymous  author,  writing  near  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  who,  wishing  to  gain  for  his  message 
the  authority  of  the  great  apostle,  sent  it  forth  in  Peter's 
name,  and  to  churches  in  Asia  Minor  that  had  been 
addressed  in  First  Peter — to  churches,  at  any  rate,  which 
were  familiar  with  that  letter.  And  just  because  those 
churches  were  probably  not  acquainted  with  Jude's 
Epistle,  else  the  author  of  Second  Peter  would  scarcely 
have  ventured  to  use  it  so  extensively,  we  may  assume 
that  Jude's  letter  circulated  in  a  different  region — pos- 
sibly among  the  churches  of  Syria  or  of  the  adjacent 
portion  of  Asia  Minor. 


i68  NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHERS 

We  may  infer  without  question  that  the  Epistle  of 
Jude  was  written  by  some  one  bearing  that  name,  for  an 
obscure  author,  wishing  to  hide  himself  behind  another's 
name,  would  obviously  have  chosen  someone  more 
distinguished  than  Jude.  Unless,  therefore,  the  words 
"  brother  of  James "  in  the  opening  salutation  have 
been  added  by  some  copyist,  we  may  identify  this  writer 
with  the  Judas  who  was  brother  to  both  James  of 
Jerusalem  and  Jesus.  Though  he  does  not  claim  to 
be  an  apostle,  we  can  imagine  that  his  relationship  to 
Jesus  would  give  him  some  authority  over  the  Syrian 
churches,  if  he  ventured  to  address  them.  That  he 
dwells  in  a  somewhat  curious  and  Jewish  world  is 
shown  by  the  use  he  makes  (vers.  9,  14),  giving  them, 
indeed,  a  canonical  status,  of  two  portions  of  Jewish 
apocryphal  literature  —  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the 
Assumption  of  Moses.  Out  of  this  circle  of  quaint  and 
old-fashioned  conceptions — fortified,  indeed,  by  them — 
Jude  addresses  himself  to  the  existing  situation.  He 
seems  to  have  had  in  preparation  some  larger  treatise 
on  "the  common  salvation"  (ver.  3),  the  experience  of 
Divine  grace  which  he  shared  with  his  readers,  but  from 
this  occupation  he  was  diverted  by  the  emergence  of  a 
crisis.  It  was  occasioned  by  the  appearance  in  the 
churches  to  which  he  wrote  of  false  teachings  and  prac- 
tices, due  to  the  presence  of  men  who  combined  a 
practical  antinomianism  with  the  germs  of  certain  Gnostic 


JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER  169 

ideas.  They  denied,  as  did  the  Gnostics,  the  sole 
rulership  of  Christ  (ver.  4),  whilst  another  offence  laid  at 
their  door  (ver.  8),  is  that  "  they  set  at  nought  dominion  " 
(or  "  lordship  ")  "  and  rail  at  dignities  "  (or  "  glories  "). 
The  context  shows  that  angels  of  some  sort  are  referred 
to  in  these  seemingly  technical  terms.  If  good  angels, 
as  some  suppose,  are  meant,  the  point,  according  to  the 
context,  will  be,  that  contemptuous  language  towards 
them  is  extremely  unfitting,  seeing  that  when,  according 
to  a  popular  tradition  then  current,  the  archangel  Michael 
contended  with  Satan  as  to  whether  he  should  bury  the 
body  of  Moses  or  Satan  be  allowed  to  bear  it  away,  the 
language  of  Michael  even  towards  his  wicked  adversary 
was  marked  by  studious  moderation ;  and  if  bad  angels 
were  treated  thus,  how  much  more  entitled  to  respect 
are  the  good?  The  weakness  of  that  interpretation, 
however,  is  that  it  does  not  bring  the  offenders'  scorn 
of  "  dignities  "  into  any  obvious  relation  with  the  license 
ascribed  to  them.  Hence  there  seems  more  force  in 
the  suggestion  that  what  is  hinted  at  is  a  conception  of 
angelic  hierarchies,  good  and  bad,  which,  under  certain 
conditions,  had  "dominion"  over  men,  and  could  work 
their  weal  or  woe.  The  idea  of  these  antinomians  was 
that,  at  the  moment  of  baptism,  they  had,  as  though  by 
some  magic  rite,  passed  under  the  sovereign  protection 
of  Christ,  so  that  henceforth,  whatever  their  conduct, 
the  potentates  who  brought  woe  upon  the  sinful  were 


I70     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

powerless  to  harm  them,  and  from  within  the  sheltered 
defence  of  their  Christian  profession  could  be  scorned 
and  defied.  If  that  be  the  position,  the  reference  to 
Michael  is  intended  to  suggest  by  contrast  the  rash  folly 
of  these  daring  libertines. 

For  libertines  they  were,  making  the  grace  of  God  a 
cloke  for  license.  That  is  the  head  and  front  of  their 
offending.  They  were  "  ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace 
of  our  God  into  lasciviousness  "  (ver.  4),  "  animal,  having 
not  the  Spirit"  (ver.  19).  Perverting  Paul's  teaching 
concerning  the  Christian  religion  as  meaning  release 
from  legalism,  they  said  that  the  Christian  was  lifted 
above  law,  so  that  moral  distinctions  became  meaning- 
less. The  result  of  such  teaching  was  inevitable.  These 
"emancipated"  ones  turned  Christian  liberty  into  license, 
and  made  their  profession  of  discipleship  a  cloke  for 
vicious  indulgence.  Many  of  them  evidently  posed  as 
teachers,  and  in  that  guise  craftily  insinuated  themselves 
(ver.  4)  into  churches,  upon  which  they  boldly  pastured 
themselves  (ver.  12),  sowing  strife  and  making  "separa- 
tions," i,e.  creating  cliques  and  parties,  and,  with  simply 
a  selfish  regard  for  their  own  advantage,  working  serious 
harm.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Jude,  in  a  wealth  of  figures 
drawn  from  ordinary  life  and  nature,  almost  exhausts  the 
language  of  invective  in  his  denunciation  of  them.  He 
speaks  of  them  as  "spots"  (this  translation  is  to  be 
preferred  to  that  of  "sunken  reefs"),  or   sources   of 


JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER  171 

defilement,  in  the  love-feasts,  that  intimate  expression 
of  Christian  fellowship  in  the  early  Church,  for,  as  we 
gather  from  the  parallel  passage  in  II.  Pet.  ii.  14,  these 
libertines  turned  even  the  love-feasts  to  vicious  ends ; 
as  clouds  that  were  rainless  and  autumn  trees  which 
were  fruitless,  mere  shams  devoid  of  both  profit  and 
goodness  ;  as  wild  waves,  restless  because  of  the  surging 
up  of  unholy  passion ;  as  erratic  meteors,  flashing  for  a 
brief  moment  in  the  heavens  and  then  quenched  in 
eternal  darkness.  When  he  would  find  parallels  to 
them,  Jude  turns  to  the  unbelieving  Israelites  who  fell 
in  the  wilderness,  or  to  the  angels  who,  through  sin, 
forfeited  their  proud  heritage,  or  to  the  vicious  cities  of 
the  Plain ;  or,  using  vivid  speech,  he  describes  them  as 
sharing  the  sins  of  Cain  and  Balaam  and  the  sons  of 
Korah.  That  men,  on  whom  such  strictures  could  with 
any  semblance  of  truth  be  passed,  should  have  been 
tolerated  within  the  Christian  Church,  seems  almost 
incredible,  until  we  remember  that  every  successful 
movement  has  its  camp-followers,  that  the  keen  ardour 
with  which  high  ideals  are  first  pursued  is  difficult  to 
maintain,  and  that  error  is  always  plausible  and  seductive, 
when  it  links  itself  with  sensual  gratification. 

To  Jude  two  things  were  clear, — the  ultimate  doom 
of  these  false  teachers,  and  the  present  duty  of  the 
Christians  whom  he  addressed.  Not  content  with  re- 
calling the  Divine  judgments  which  fell  upon  analogous 


172     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

transgressors,  he  specially  applies  to  these  antinomians 
a  prediction  of  the  Divine  assize  which  appears  in  the 
apocryphal  Book  of  Enoch  (vers.  14,  15).  Just  as  their 
coming  had  been  predicted  (ver.  18),  their  punishment 
was  also  certain.  The  immediate  duty  of  the  Church 
was  to  counteract  their  baleful  influence  by  contending 
earnestly  "  for  the  faith  which  was  once  for  all  delivered 
unto  the  saints  "  (ver.  3).  It  may  be  noted  in  passing 
that  the  term  "  faith,"  as  there  used,  comes  as  near  as 
it  does  anywhere  in  the  New  Testament,  to  denoting  a 
scheme  of  doctrine,  a  concrete  system  of  ideas — a  fact 
which,  even  if  it  stood  alone,  is  sufficient  to  demand  a  late 
date  for  this  Epistle.  So  far  as  the  false  teachers  them- 
selves and  those  influenced  by  them  were  concerned,  the 
duty  of  loyal  Christians  was  manifold,  being  regulated 
by  the  extent  to  which  a  man  had  committed  himself 
to  false  teaching  and  practice.  And  all  the  while,  as 
their  supreme  safeguard,  Christians  were  to  look  well  to 
their  own  hearts,  building  themselves  up  on  the  sure 
foundation  of  their  "  most  holy  faith,"  cultivating  prayer, 
and  keeping  themselves  within  the  charmed  circle  of 
the  Divine  love,  and,  finally,  looking  with  eager  expecta- 
tion towards  that  mercy  which,  at  the  return  of  Christ, 
would  issue  in  the  boon  of  eternal  life. 

Of  Jude's  letter  the  Epistle  known  as  Second  Peter  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  largely  a  republication,  especially  in 
the  second  chapter.    Detailed  reference  to  that  portion  of 


JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER  173 

the  Epistle  is,  therefore,  unnecessary.  An  interesting 
clue  as  to  the  date  of  composition  is  afforded  by  the 
existence,  when  this  Epistle  was  written,  of  outspoken 
scepticism  as  to  the  return  of  Jesus.  "  Where,"  men 
were  asking  in  a  tone  of  scorn,  "is  the  promise  of  His 
coming?  The  'fathers'  of  the  Church  are  all  dead, 
and  yet  the  world  keeps  on  its  course  with  no  sign  of 
change."  Faith  in  the  Parusia  was  crumbling  owing  to 
the  long  delay  in  its  occurrence.  It  is  significant 
that  our  author  meets  that  scepticism,  not  only  by  re- 
affirming the  certainty  of  Christ's  return,  but  by  justify- 
ing its  delay.  If  the  expected  coming  had  not  yet 
occurred,  it  was  not  because  God  was  slack  concerning 
His  promise.  Time  with  Him  was  not  measured  by 
human  standards.  The  delay  was  merciful  in  that  it 
was  designed  to  allow  men  space  for  repentance  before 
mercy  gave  place  to  judgment  (an  idea  which  is  repeated 
later,  when  the  long-suffering  of  God  is  said  to  contem- 
plate man's  salvation).  But,  whether  soon  or  late, 
Christ  would  come  again,  with  the  unexpectedness  of  a 
thief,  and  His  return  would  witness  the  violent  dissolu- 
tion of  the  present  order  of  things,  and  of  the  world  in 
which  that  order  had  its  home,  and  out  of  the  crumbling 
ruins  would  be  evolved  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth, 
the  abode  of  righteousness.  In  constant  readiness  for 
that  grave  consummation  and  in  earnest  longing  for  it 
Christians  were  to  pass  the  days  of  waiting,  for  Christ's 


174     NEW    TESTAMENT   TEACHERS 

return,  though  long  delayed,  was  inevitable  and  sure. 
"  We  did  not  follow  cunningly-devised  fables,"  says  our 
author,  "  when  we  made  known  unto  you  the  power  and 
coming "  {i.e.  the  return)  "  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ " 
(i.  1 6).  So  the  business  of  his  readers  was,  by  growth 
in  Christian  virtue,  earnestly  to  respond  to  God's  choice 
of  them,  so  that,  when  the  eternal  Kingdom  was  in- 
augurated, they  might  be  furnished  with  entrance  into 
it  (i.  lo,  ii). 

A  novel  feature  in  the  teaching  of  this  Epistle  is  the 
importance  which  is  attached  to  knowledge.  There  in- 
deed, it  has  been  said,  we  have  its  key-word.  Yet  the 
author's  thought  will  elude  us  unless  we  see  that  "know- 
ledge "  is  used  in  a  twofold  sense.  In  one  meaning  it 
stands  but  slightly  removed  from  faith,  though  it  possesses 
an  added  degree  of  certainty.  Faith  so  soon  melts  into 
knowledge,  as  used  in  this  sense,  that  Christian  experience 
is  traced  indifferently  to  a  "precious  faith"  (i.  i)  and  to 
the  knowledge  of  Christ  (i.  3).  Faith  leads  to  "virtue," 
a  rudimentary  but  comprehensive  manifestation  of  the 
Christian  graces,  and  that  "  virtue  "  leads  on  to  "  know- 
ledge,"— that  is  the  path  of  Christian  progress  (i.  5). 
But  "  knowledge  "  in  this  latter  sense,  just  because  it  is 
elementary,  instead  of  being  a  goal,  only  represents  a 
new  starting-point,  for,  in  virtue  of  its  possession,  the 
Christian  is  enabled  to  move  on  to  the  graces  in  their 
more  advanced  stage,  self-restraint  being  supplemented 


JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER  175 

by  patience  and  godliness,  until,  when  love  comes  in 
to  complete  the  circle, — love  not  simply  towards  the 
Christian  brotherhood,  but  towards  humanity, — the 
very  moral  advance  so  registered  bears  fruit  in  that 
deeper  "  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  (i.  8),  in 
which  the  readers  of  this  letter  are  in  a  final  appeal 
exhorted  to  grow  (iii.  18).  This  knowledge  is  spoken 
of  sometimes  as  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  at  other  times 
as  a  knowledge  of  Christ,  but  the  two  phrases  are  thus 
interchanged  simply  because  the  knowledge  in  question 
is  that  which  we  have  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Yet  it  is  more  than  mere  intellectualism.  Nay,  it  is 
to  such  an  intellectualism,  barren  because  divorced 
from  conduct,  that  the  true  "  knowledge "  is  opposed, 
our  author's  desire  probably  being  to  rescue  the  term 
from  the  unethical,  and  even  immoral,  associations  to 
which  an  antinomian  Gnosticism  had  degraded  it. 
Knowledge  here,  as  in  the  Johannine  writings,  is  not 
merely  intellectual,  but  ethical  and  practical.  It  denotes 
such  a  fellowship,  not  merely  with  the  thought,  but  with 
the  spirit  and  will  of  God,  as  inevitably  finds  appropriate 
expression  in  character  and  life. 

Thus  does  the  writer  of  this  letter  set  the  true  Gnosis^ 
or  knowledge,  over  against  the  false,  and  test  each  by 
its  fruits.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Paul's  Epistles 
are  referred  to  as  being  perverted  by  ignorant  or  wicked 
interpreters    so   as   to    justify   misconduct.     The    very 


176     NEW    TESTAMENT    TEACHERS 

doctrine  against  which  Paul  protested  so  vehemently 
(Rom.  vi.),  that  the  passage  from  law  to  grace  meant 
freedom  to  transgress,  became  "  the  error  of  the  wicked  " 
(iii.  17),  who  thus  turned  liberty  into  libertinism. 
Another  reference  to  Scripture — this  time  to  Old 
Testament  prophecy — presents  a  problem  for  exegesis. 
"  Peter  "  has  been  arguing  that  the  glory  manifested  in 
Christ's  person  at  the  Transfiguration  was  a  pledge  of 
His  return  in  glory.  "  And  thus,"  says  he,  taking  that 
event  as  the  goal  to  which  all  revelation  converged, 
**  we  have  the  prophetic  word  made  more  sure — a  word 
to  which  you  do  well  to  take  heed,  as  to  a  lamp  shining 
in  a  dark  room,  until  the  day  of  that  consummation 
dawns."  But  prophecy  could  not  nourish  hope  unless 
it  was  righdy  interpreted.  And  so  we  are  told  to 
recognise,  first  of  all,  "that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is 
of  private  interpretation,"  i.e.  as  most  exegetes  are  dis- 
posed to  explain  this  difficult  saying,  "  a  prophecy  is  not 
a  puzzle  which  can  be  solved  according  to  individual 
caprice  "  (a  practice  of  which  the  false  teachers  denounced 
in  chap.  ii.  were  guilty) ;  "  it  embodies  a  definite 
purpose,  in  the  discovery  of  which  the  individual 
interpreter  must  be  governed  by  general  principles  of 
exegesis,  which  are  approved  by  the  judgment  of  the 
Christian  community."  Individual  caprice  is  thus 
barred  out,  because  "  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will 
of  man  "  ;  not  in  human  volition  or  effort  lay  the  secret 


JUDE  AND  SECOND  PETER  177 

of  its  utterance ;  "  but  men  spake  from  God,  being 
borne  along  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (i.  19-21).  What 
therefore,  the  Holy  Ghost  has  inspired,  requires  Him 
also  for  its  interpretation.  The  view  of  inspiration  thus 
set  forth,  implying,  as  it  does,  the  supersession  of  the 
prophet's  intellect  and  will  by  a  superior  force,  represents 
it,  after  the  fashion  of  Philo  or  Plato,  as  essentially 
mechanical  in  its  operation.-  And  the  presence  of  such 
a  degenerate  conception  here  is  a  reason,  added  to 
others,  why  scholarship  relegates  this  Epistle  to  the 
second  century,  and  regards  it  as  probably  in  date  the 
latest  contribution  to  the  New  Testament. 


M 


INDEX 


Aaronic  priesthood,  Jesus  and 

the,  138,  143  fr. 
Angels,  Jesus  and,  136 
Apocalypses,  Jewish,  91  f. 
Assumption  of  Moses,  168 

Baldensperger,  12 
Barnabas,  132 
Baptism,  34 
Beyschlag,  28 

C^SAR-WORSHIP,  93,  96,  99 

Celsus,  12 

Cerinthus,  16 

Christ,  Death  of,  51,  142  ff. 

Person  of,  11,  19 ff.,  73,  75,  99, 
136  ff. 

Work  of,  5iff.,i42ff. 
Church,  Holy  Spirit  and  the,  35  ff. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  8 
Covenant,  the  new,  144,  145 

Darkness,  45 

Death  of  Christ,  51,  142  ff. 

Demetrius,  88 

Diotrephes,  87 

Docetic  Gnosticism,  73,  75,  86 

Drummond,  14 


Enoch,  Book  of,  168, 
Epiphanius,  8 


[72 


Eschatology,  Johannine,  62  ff. 
Eternal  Life,  64  f.,  82  ff. 
Eusebius,  8 

Faith,  15,  59,  83  f.,  147  f.,  172, 

174 
Faith  and  works,  117 
Fatherhood  of  God,  32 
Finality  of  Christianity,  146  ff, ,  150 
Findlay,  85 

Gaius,  87 

Gnosticism,  15 f.,  56,  99 
Docetic  type  of,  73,  75,  86 
Antinomian,  76,  86,  99,  168  ff. 

Godet.  3 

Gunkel,  95 

Harnack,  88,  133,  156 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  132  ff. 

author,  132 

readers,  133  ff. 

historic  situation,  134  f. 

contrasts,  136  ff. 

message,  148 
High-priesthood  of  Jesus,  138  ff. 
Holiness  of  God,  33,  77 
Holy  Spirit,  33 ff.,  49,  177 
Humanity  of  Jesus,  22,  139  f. 


I  Incarnation,  52  ff. 
179 


i8o 


INDEX 


Inspiration,  176  f. 

James,  the  apostle,  115,  118 
James,  Epistle  of  ,  115  ff. 

author,  115 

characteristics  and  date,  116  f. 

readers,  117  ff. 

debt  to  Jesus,  119,  121,  122 

teaching,  122  ff, 

message,  130 
Jews  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  10 
John  the  Baptist,  5,  12 
John ,  First  Epistle  of,  71  ff. 

author,  71 

readers,  72 

heresy  attacked,  73  ff. 

doctrine  of  Christ,  75,  78 

Light,  •j'j  ff. 

Love,  80  ff. 

Life,  82  f. 
John,  Second  Epistle  of,  84  ff. 
John,  Third  Epistle  of,  87  ff. 
John,  Gospel  of,  3  ff . 

authorship,  3f, 

historicity,  4  ff. 

discourses,  5  f . 

a  "  spiritual"  gospel,  8 

purpose,  9 

readers,  10 

terminology,  13 

subjectivity,  18 

teaching,  19  fif. 
John  the  Presbyter,  84,  97 
Jiide,  Epistle  of  166  ff. 

relationship    to   Second   Peter, 
166  f. 

author,  168 

heresy  attacked,  168  ff. 
Judgment,  48,  68 

Kingdom  of  God,  64 
Knowledge,  15,  55,  59,  76  f.,  174 


Last  Things,  65  ff. 
Law  of  liberty,  122 

of  love,  121 
Life,  15,  57  ff.,  82  ff. 
Light,  15,  45,  S3,  Tj 
Logos.     See  Word 
Love,  32  f  ,  80  ff. 
Lord's  Supper,  60-61 

Martineau,  3,  71 
Melchizedek,  138 
Messiahship  of  Jesus,  23 
Moses,  Jesus  and,  137 

Nero,  93,  97,  105,  io6 
New  Covenant,  144,  145 

Origen,  132 

Parusia.     See  Return  of  Jesus 
Pauline  teaching,  John  and,  41, 

51.57 

James  and,  123 

Peter  and,  153,  160,  175 
Perfection  of  Jesus,  29,  78 
Person  of  Christ,  11,   19 ff.,  73, 

75,99,  136  ff. 
Peter,  First  Epistle  of,  152  ff. 

author,  152 

debt  to  Paul,  153 

readers,  154 

historic  situation,  155 

teaching,  157  ff. 
Peter,  Second  Epistle  of,   166  f., 
172  ff. 

relation  to  Jude,  166  f. 

teaching,  173  fif. 
Persecution,  Christians  and,  93  f. , 

104,  119,  149,  155  f.,  158  f. 
Pfleiderer,  71,  156 
Philip,  132 
Philo,  14,  20  ff. ,  31 


INDEX 


i8i 


Pre-existence  of  Jesus,  27  f. ,  141  f. 

Priscilla,  133 

Prophecy,  Limitations  of,  109  ff. 

Resurrection,  68 

Return  of  Jesus,  17,  62 fF.,  127, 

149.  173 
Revelation,  Book  of  ike,  90  ff. 

characteristics,  91  f. 

historic  situation,  93 

originality,  94  ff. 

date  and  author,  97  ff. 

churches  addressed,  99 

exposition    of    its    symbolism, 
100  ff. 

message,  109 

limitations,  109  ff. 
Revelation,  Jesus  and,  31,  45  f., 

53 
Holy  Spirit  and,  37 
Rich  and  poor,  120?.,  127 
Roman   Government,    Christians 

and  the,  93  f. ,  154 

Salvation,  universality  of,  41  f. , 
46  ff. 
nature  of,  145,  147 
Schmiedel,  3,  16,  71 
Scott,  vii,  65 


Second  Coming.     See  Return  of 

Jesus 
Sin,  S3,  77,  79 

Social  teaching  of  James,  120,  127 
Son  of  God,  25 
Son  of  Man,  24 
Sonship  and  fatherhood,  50 
Sonship  of  Jesus,  25  ff. 
South,  90 
Spirit,  God  a,  31 
Spirits  in  prison,  162  ff. 
Synoptists,  the  Fourth  Gospel  and 

the,  4f. ,  II,  24,  51,  62-63 

Transcendence  of  God,  32 
Trinity,  39  ff. 

Universality  of  salvation ,  41  f. , 
46  ff. 

Weiss,  3 
Weizsacicer,  3 
Wellhausen,  4,  71 
Wendt,  3,  28 
Wernle,  3 
Word,  13,  19  ff.,  45 
World,  15,  43 

Church  and  the,  41  ff. 

Holy  Spirit  and  the,  36,  49 


Printed  by  Eallantvne,  Hanson  &'  Co. 
Edinburgh  &=  London 


Each  Volume,  Cloth,  gilt,  2s.  6cl.  net;  Limp  Leather,  3s.  6cl.  net.  A  neat 
Cloth-covered  Box  to  contain  the  Thirteen  Volumes  in  the  Neiv  Testament 
is  supplied  gratis  with  each  complete  set.  Price  of  box  separately,  2s. 
net.     A  ny  Volume  sold  separately. 

THE    CENTURY    BIBLE 

(ANNOTATED) 
Gen.  Editor:  PRIN.  WALTER  F.  ADENEY,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Presents  in  lucid  form  the  results  of  the  best  modern  scholarship.  Though  in 
pocket  form,  the  volumes  are  equal  in  amount  of  matter  to  substantial  octavos, 
the  result  being  obtained  by  the  use  of  thin  and  opaque  paper.  Each  volume  is 
an  original  and  adequate  Commentary. 

The  standpoint  of  the  writers  throughout  is  that  of  a  frank  recognition  of  the 
ascertained  results  of  criticism  united  to  a  sympathetic  perception  of  the  value 
of  the  books  under  study,  and  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  faith.  In  treatment  the 
volumes  are  such  as  can  be  readily  apprehended  by  readers  who  do  not  pre- 
tend to  any  special  theologfical  knowledge.  But  no  difficulty  is  shirked, 
and  every  effort  is  made  to  elucidate  the  meaning  of  obscure  passages. 

LEADING  FEATURES 

(i)  Beautiful  Pocket  Volumes.  (2)  Authorised  Version  in  large  type 
(in  New  Testament  only).  (3)  Revised  Version  (by  arrangement  with  the 
Oxford  and  Cambridge  Universities),  with  full  commentary.  (4)  Introduc- 
tion and  Index  to  each  volume.  (5)  Each  volume  complete  in  itself,  with  map. 
(6)  Printed  at  the  Oxford  Press  on  pure  rag  paper. 


A  FEW  OUT  OF  INNUMERABLE  TESTIMONIALS 

Very  Rev.  Joseph  Armitag-e  Robinson,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Westminster. — 
"The  work  is  at  once  simple  and  scholarly  in  character." 

Rev.  A.  M.  Fairbairn,  D.D.,  Principal  of  Mansfield  College,  Oxford.— 
"Let  me  thank  you  for  your  book  on  Hebrews.  I  have  read  the  introduction 
with  admiration,  instruction,  and  enjoyment.  It  is  excellent — lucid,  cautious, 
well-constructed,  and  well-balanced." 

Rev.  John  Watson  ("Ian  Maclaren"),  Liverpool.— "The  names  of  the 
editors  is  a  pledge  of  accuracy  and  interest  in  the  notes.  Not  the  least  useful 
feature  is  the  index." 

British  Weekly.— " 'The  Century  Bible' justifies  its  title.  It  touches  the 
high-water  mark  of  popularised  Biblical  scholarship  and  of  book  production. 
In  every  respect  it  may  be  spoken  of  in  terms  of  unqualified  praise.  In  small 
compass  and  beautiful  form,  the  volumes  contain  the  Revised  Version,  the 
Authorised  Version,  and  admirably  compact  and  intelligent  notes.  No  more 
competent,  authoritative,  and  illuminating  commentaries  can  be  desired  than 
such  as  are  here  given  us." 

Family  Churchman. — "There  is  probably  no  issue  of  the  Word  of  God 
which  commends  itself  so  fully  to  the  student  of  Scripture  as  does  this  handy 
and  useful  issue. " 


THE   CENTURY   BIBLE 

♦GENESIS,  by  the  Rev.  Prcf.  W,  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 
♦EXODUS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  H.  Bennett,  Litt.D.,  D.D, 
♦LEVITICUS  AND  NUMBERS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.   R.   S.    Kennedy, 

M.A.,  D.D. 
♦DEUTERONOMY    and    JOSHUA,    by    the    Rev.    Prof.    H.    Wheelhtr 

Robinson,  M.A.,  B.D. 
♦JUDGES  AND  RUTH,  by  the  Rev.  G.  W.  Thatcher,  M.A.,  B.D, 
♦I.  AND  II.  SAMUEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦I,  AND  II.  KINGS,  by  the  Rev.  Principal  Skinner,  M.A.,  D.D, 
•I.  AND  n.   CHRONICLES,  by  the  Rev.  W.  Harvey-Jellie,  M.A.,  B.D. 
♦EZRA,    NEHEMIAH,   and  ESTHER,   by  the  Rev,    Prof,   T,    Witton 

Davies,  B.A.,  Ph.D. 
♦JOB,  bv  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 

♦PSALMS  (Vol.  I.)  I.  TO  LXXII.,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  Davison,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦PSALMS  (Vol.    II.)  LXXIII.   TO   END,  by  the  Rev.   Prof.   T,  Witton 

Davies,  B.A.,  Ph.D. 
^PROVERBS,  ECCLESIASTES,  and  SONG  OF  SOLOMON,  by  the  Rev. 

Prof.  G.  CuRRiE  Martin,  M.A.,  B.D. 
♦ISAIAH  I. -XXXIX.,  by  the  Rev.  Owen  C.  Whitehouse,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦ISAIAH  XL.-LXVL,  by  the  Rev.  Owen  C,  Whitehousk,  M.A.,  D.D, 
JEREMIAH  AND  LAMENTATIONS,  by  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 
*EZEKIEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof,  W.  F.  Lofthouse,  M.A. 

DANIEL,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  R.  H.  Charles,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦MINOR  PROPHETS  :  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Jonah,  MiCAH,by 

the  Rev.  R.  F.  Horton,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦MINOR  PROPHETS  :  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Haggai,  Zecha- 

RiAH,  Malachi,  by  the  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 

*i.  MATTHEW,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.  F.  Slater,  M.A. 

♦2.  MARK,  by  the  late  Principal  Salmond,  M.A.,  D.D. 

♦3.  LUKE,  by  Principal  W.  F.  Adeney,  M.A.,  D.D. 

♦4.  JOHN,  by  the  Rev.  J.  A.  M'Clymont,  M.A.,  D.D. 

♦5.  ACTS,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  J.  Vernon  Bartlht,  M.A.,  D.D. 

♦6.  ROMANS,  by  the  Rev.  Prin.  A.  E,  Garvie,  M.A.,  D.D, 

♦7,  I,  AND  II.  CORINTHIANS,  by  Prof.  J.  Massie,  M.A.,  D.D. 

♦8.  EPHESIANS,  COLOSSIANS,  PHILEMON,  PHILIPPIANS,  by  the 

Rev.  Prof.  G,  CuRRiE  Martin,  M.A,,  B.D. 
♦9.  I.   AND  II.    THESSALONIANS,   GALATIANS,  by   Principal  W.   F. 
Adenev,  M.A.,  D.D. 
•10.  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES,  by  the  Rev.  R.  F.  Horton,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦11.  HEBREWS,  by  Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D. 
♦12.  THE   GENERAL    EPISTLES,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  W.   H.  Bennett 

M.A.,  Litt.D.,  D.D. 
♦13.  REVELATION,  by  the  Rev.  Prof.  C.  Anderson  Scott,  M.A.,  B.D. 
[Those  marked  ♦  are  already  published.] 

London  :  T,  C,  &  E.  C.  JACK,  16  Henrietta  Street 
AND  Edinburgh 


Theological  Semmary-Speer  Libra 


1    1012  01145  8538 


